DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02 June 2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-4 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,518,942. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent is more limited than the instant application claims requiring all the limitations of claims 1-4 of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arai et al. (US pgPub 2011/0068265).
Regarding claim 1, Arai et al. teaches a charged particle beam device (fig. 1) for emitting a charged particle beam onto a sample (beam from source 1 to sample 8), the charged particle beam device comprising:
a charged particle beam optical system (2/3) for emitting the charged particle beam onto the sample (as seen in figure 1);
a sample chamber (4) provided with a stage (9) on which the sample is placed (8 placed on 9);
a plasma generating device (13/14/15) for generating plasma to be emitted onto the stage ([0139] and abstract).
a connecting member (fig. 5, 43 is an insulator, wherein 44/45 correspond to 15 of figure 1 and 43 connects with 14 ([0158]). Thus 43 is upstream of 15 in figure 1 and connects with chamber 4) that includes an insulating spacer (43 is an insulating cylinder ([0158]) spacing 40-42 from chamber 4 as seen in figures 1 and 4) insulating the sample chamber and the plasma generating device (43 insulates 4 from 40-42 due to its insulative material), and connects the plasma generating device to the sample chamber (fig. 1 shows 13 connected to chamber 4, wherein as discussed above 43 (fig. 5) is upstream of 15 (fig. 1), thus connects the source to the chamber).
Regarding claim 2, Arai et al. teaches wherein the plasma generating device includes a main body that generates plasma (42), and a guide (41) extending from the main body in a direction toward the stage (since 42 is connected to 45 which corresponds to 15 in figure 1, 41 extends from 15 towards the stage 9).
Regarding claim 3, Arai teaches wherein the stage (9) is provided with a voltage source (17) that provides approximately the same potential as the potential of the plasma generating device (17 is capable of providing the same potential as 15 because they are both power sources).
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Castagna et al. (US pgPub 2014/0034830)
Regarding claim 1, Castagna et al. teaches a charged particle beam device (figs. 2-4) for emitting a charged particle beam (from charged particle beam source 204 in figure 2) onto a sample (110), the charged particle beam device comprising:
a charged particle beam optical system (as seen in figure 2, 208/210//212) for emitting the charged particle beam onto the sample (as seen in figure 2);
a sample chamber (112) provided with a stage (224) on which the sample is placed (8 placed on 9);
a plasma generating device (100 in figure 2) for generating plasma (100 is a gas source that may be ionized ([0014]) thus generating plasma (i.e. ionized gas)) to be emitted onto the stage (to sample 110 on stage).
a connecting member ([0030] “The needle is preferably supported by on the vacuum chamber wall by a mechanism that electrically isolates the needle from the vacuum chamber wall so that the needle or a structure attached to the needle can be electrically charged”) that includes an insulating spacer ([0030] mechanism that electrically isolates) insulating the sample chamber and the plasma generating device ([0030] needle supported on vacuum chamber wall by mechanism that electrically isolates, thus insulating the chamber from GIS 100), and connects the plasma generating device to the sample chamber ([0030]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masashi (JP2007149449) in view of Hamamoto (US pgPub 2002/0164845).
Regarding claim 1, Masashi teaches a charged particle beam device (fig. 1) for emitting a charged particle beam onto a sample (13 emitted from 12 to sample 2), the charged particle beam device comprising:
a charged particle beam optical system (12) for emitting the charged particle beam onto the sample (as seen in figure 1);
a sample chamber (11) provided with a stage (3) on which the sample is placed (2 placed on 1);
a plasma generating device (1) for generating plasma to be emitted onto the stage (via 21)
While Masashi inherently must connect 1 to chamber 11 by some means, Masashi fails to disclose a connecting member that includes an insulating spacer insulating the sample chamber and the plasma generating device, and connects the plasma generating device to the sample chamber.
However, Hamamoto teaches a connecting member (28) that includes an insulating spacer ([0048]) insulating the sample chamber and the plasma generating device ([0048]), and connects the plasma generating device to the sample chamber (as seen in figure 1).
Hamamoto modifies Masashi by suggesting connecting the plasma source with a insulating connecting member (note: Hamamoto also envisioned the source within the vacuum chamber see paragraph [0072]).
Since both inventions are directed towards connecting plasma sources to vacuum chambers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the connection of Masashi to include an insulator for connection as in Hamamoto because it would insulate the vacuum chamber from the voltage applied to the plasma generator ([0072]) thus preventing the voltage of the plasma chamber being applied to the vacuum chamber and interfering with the charged particle optics in the column 12 of Masashi.
Alternatively, Castagna teaches a connecting member ([0030] “The needle is preferably supported by on the vacuum chamber wall by a mechanism that electrically isolates the needle from the vacuum chamber wall so that the needle or a structure attached to the needle can be electrically charged”) that includes an insulating spacer ([0030] mechanism that electrically isolates) insulating the sample chamber and the plasma generating device ([0030] needle supported on vacuum chamber wall by mechanism that electrically isolates, thus insulating the chamber from GIS 100), and connects the plasma generating device to the sample chamber ([0030]).
Castagna modifies Masashi by suggesting a mechanism that electrically isolate the chamber wall so that the needle or a structure attached to the needle can be electrically charged.
Sicne both inventions are directed towards connecting plasma sources to an electron microscope, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to isolate the plasma source from the vacuum chamber via a mechanism that electrically isolates because it would allow the guide of Masashi to be electrically charged improving the delivery of the plasma to the sample. Moreover, isolating the plasma source from the vacuum chamber would improving user safety by not applying a voltage to the chamber
Regarding claim 2, Masashi teaches wherein the plasma generating device includes a main body that generates plasma (1), and a guide (21) extending from the main body in a direction toward the stage (as seen in figure 1).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (a) Castagna et al. alternatively (b) Masashi (JP2007149449) in view of Hamamoto (US pgPub 2002/0164845) or Castagna and in either (a) or (b) further in view of Gubbens (USPN 7,488,938).
Regarding claims 3, Castagna or the combined device fails to disclose wherein the stage is provided with a voltage source that provides approximately the same potential as the potential of the plasma generating device.
However, Gubbens teaches wherein the stage (220) is provided with a voltage source (224) that provides approximately the same potential as the potential of the plasma generating device ( the voltage source is controllable col. 4, lines 59-60 thus could be set at the same potential as the plasma generating device of the Castagna or the combined device).
Gubbens et al. modifies Castagna or the combined device by suggesting a voltage source to the sample.
Since both inventions are directed towards charge control, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the voltage source of Gubbens in Castagna or the combined device because it would allow for negating charging of the sample to compensate for positive charging during an imaging phase so as to properly balance the charging patterns. This balancing prevents secondary/backscatter electrons from escaping thus increasing the net secondary electron and backscatter electron yield thus improving the image yield by reducing loss of secondary and back scatter electrons (col. 3, lines 16-32 teaches balancing and col. 3, lines 33-37 teach the benefit). Moreover, adding an additional source to provide charge neutralization would increase the efficiency and/or flexibililty on the type of neutralization process to use.
Regarding claim 4, the combined device teaches wherein the plasma generating device is configured to generate plasma between frames for imaging the sample (Masashi is capable of generating plasma between frames by operating the plasma source while the electron source is not operative) and execute a static elimination operation on the sample ([0010] of Masashi).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights