DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 USC § 102: Arai
The remarks take the position that the insulating cylinders 41/43 are components that are internal to the plasma charged particle source 46 and are not a connecting member between the plasma generating device and the sample chamber and they do not insulate the plasma generating device from the sample chamber.
This has not been found persuasive. Initially, 41/43 was not interpreted to be the claimed connecting member. Instead, insulator 43 is interpreted as the connecting member. Paragraph [0158] teaches the insulating cylinder 43 is connected to the grounded gas flow rate regulator 14 to introduce gas and is set to a sufficient length so as not to produce plasma even when a high voltage is applied to the electrode 42. In other words, it is clear that 43 is not part of the plasma source and connects with a flow rate regulator. As seen in figure 1 the flow rate regulator 14 is outside of the chamber 4. Therefore, it is clear that 43 is a connecting member between the plasma generating device (13) and the sample chamber (4).
The remarks take the position that the guide (41) of Arai is not made of metal. This has not been found persuasive. Claim 1 does not require the guide to be metallic.
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., metallic guide ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Here, the claim does not require the guide to be metallic, therefore does not distinguish the claimed invention over Arai.
Therefore, the remarks are unpersuasive and the rejection stands as reiterated herein below.
Rejections under 35 USC § 102 Castagna
The remarks take the position that the GIS is not a plasma generating device in the sense of the present claims. This has not been found persuasive as the claims are written broadly enough to cover the generation of plasma discussed in Castagna. The remarks take the position that Castagna does not have a discrete plasma generating device. This has been found unpersuasive. Specifically, the remarks admit on page 10 that Castagna’s system provides a local region at the sample surface that has sufficient gas concentration to be ionized. Plasma is an ionized gas. Therefore, the components are sufficient to be interpreted as an ionized gas. The remarks take the position that support of the needle on the vacuum chamber wall by a mechanism that electrically isolates the needle from the chamber wall is not a connection mechanism. This has not been found persuasive as there is no required distinguishing characteristic of the claimed connection mechanism (comprising an insulating spacer) to differentiate it from an electrically isolating mechanism that supports the needle on the wall. That is, in order for the needle to be supported on the chamber wall, the mechanism inherently connects the needle to the wall by some insulating spacer (i.e. electrically insulating mechanism).
With respect to the purpose of the claimed invention, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The remarks argue that Castagna fails to disclose a metallic guide extending from the main body toward the stage so that the plasma is guided to the sample’s vicinity without being affected by external electric fields.
This has not been found persuasive. There is no requirement that the guide is metallic and even if there was, the guide 318 is conductive and biased or unbiased ([0037]) and extends from the main body (i.e. 318 extends from needle 302) towards the stage. Since metals are conductive and may be biased, the conductive material of the shroud is sufficient to meet the requirement for “metallic” or (like metal). Additionally, there is no requirement for the plasma to be guided to the sample’s vicinity without external electric fields. However, even if the claim did require such limitations, they would be insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. Specifically, since the shroud is conductive as disclosed, the result of guiding the plasma is inherently the same. MPEP 2112 (II) recites “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003)”. Here, since there is no structural distinguishing feature and both the shroud and claimed guide are conductive, Castagna’s shroud would inherently result in the guiding of ionized gas (i.e. plasma) to the sample surface without external fields.
Lasty it is noted while claim 1 requires the main body that generates plasma, the claim does not require that the main body directly generates plasma. Since the gas is necessary to generate ionized gas (i.e. plasma), the main body indirectly generates plasma by providing gas.
Therefore, the remarks have been found unpersuasive and the rejection stands as reiterated herein below.
Rejections under 35 USC § 10 Masashi in view of Hamamoto
The remarks take the position that Masashi does not disclose any connecting member including an insulating spacer. This has not been found persuasive. Figure 1 clearly shows the plasma source (1/21) connected to the chamber 11. Therefore a connecting member is inherent to retain the plasma source.
However, Masashi is silent with respect to the connecting member comprising an insulating spacer.
The remarks then contend the insulating member of Hamamoto is not a connecting member between the plasma generating device and the sample chamber. This has not been found persuasive. Specifically, figure 1 clearly shows a plasma production chamber 12 separated and positioned above a chamber 8 via an insulator 28. Since insulating member is the only member between 12 and 8, it acts as a connecting member. The remarks argue about the materials and the purpose of the claimed insulator being different from Hamamoto. This has not been found persuasive. First the materials are not claimed and second MPEP 2144 (IV) recites “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)”
Here, there is another reason for insulating the plasma source from the chamber in the manner suggested by Hamamoto, mainly to 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.
The remarks take the position that the guide of Masashi is different from the claimed guide. This has not been found persuasive as there are no claimed structural distinctions.
The remarks take the position that there is no motivation to combine the references. As discussed above there is. Additionally, while the Masashi and Hamamoto are directed towards SEM and ion implantations respectively, each reference is directed towards supporting a plasma source on a chamber, thus within the same field of endeavor. Moreover, as Masashi does not disclose how the plasma source is connected to the chamber, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look towards how other plasma sources are mounted to the chamber (i.e. such as in Hamamoto) and find the rationale to connect via an insulating spacer so as 1) resolve the issue as to how to connect a plasma source to a chamber, 2) improve the safety of the operator by insulating the high voltage plasma source from the larger chamber and 3) maintaining the voltage of the plasma source to improving the delivery of the plasma in Masashi (i.e. insulating member precludes the voltage from being applied to the chamber, therefore more efficiently providing a voltage to the plasma source of Masashi).
Therefore, the remarks are unpersuasive and the rejection stands as reiterated herein below.
Note: claim 1 was alternatively rejected over Masashi in view of Castagna (see page 8 of the Non-Final Rejection of 10 June 2026 starting at the first full paragraph). This rejection was not addressed. Therefore the rejection stands as reiterated herein below.
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 and 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 (i.e. 40/41/42 in figure 5)) 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);
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])
wherein the plasma generating device includes a main body that generates plasma (fig. 3, 302 or figure 4, 402 each generates the plasma indirectly by supplying gas to the shroud), and a guide (318 or figure 4, 402) extending from the main body in a direction toward the stage (as seen in figure 3, 318 extends from 302 towards stage or figure 4, 402 extends from 412 towards stage).
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masashi (JP2007149449) in view of Hamamoto (US pgPub 2002/0164845) or alternatively in view of Castagna.
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)
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).
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 an 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.
Since 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
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 flexibility 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.1 Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
1 Note the only new grounds of rejection is the rejection of claim 1 in view of Castagna which was not previously used to reject claim 2. Now that claim 1 requires claim 2 Castagna required a new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. All other rejections remain the same each grounds of rejection addressed the limitations of claim 2, which the remarks unpersuasively argued as discussed in the response to arguments section above.
Prosecution Insights