DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) for the following reasons:
Reference character “12” has been used to designate both “excitation means” (Spec. [0040]) and “optical source” (Spec. [0041]).
Reference character “14” has been used to designate both “electron imaging means” (Spec. [0039]) and “electron image” (Spec. [0043]).
Reference character “16” has been used to designate both “laser beam” (Spec. [0040]), “irradiation” (Spec. [0041]) and “excitation” (Spec. [0042]).
Reference character “26” has been used to designate both “metallic lattice” (Spec. [0041]) and “means for generating a bias voltage” (Spec. [0046]).
Reference character “27” has been used to designate both “accelerated electrons” (Spec. [0042, 0056]) and “CCD cameras” (Spec. [0058]).
Reference character “30” has been used to designate both “objective lens” (Spec. [0042]) and “magnetic or electromagnetic lenses” (Spec. [0056]).
Reference character “32” has been used to designate both “projective lens” (Spec. [0040]) and “magnetic or electromagnetic lenses” (Spec. [0056]).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract page includes an additional line separated from main abstract paragraph stating “(Fig.1).” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because it contains internally inconsistent statements, specifically:
Paragraph [0014] of the specification states that “…the defect is imaged with a spatial resolution of at least 25 nm, preferably at least 20 nm and in particular in the range of 0.1 nm to 20 nm…” These statements are inconsistent because “at least 25 nm” conflicts with “0.1nm to 20 nm,” and “at least 20 nm” is also inconsistent with a stated upper bound of 20 nm.
Paragraph [0015] of the specification states that “a microchannel plate (MCP - a two-dimensional, image-resolving secondary electron multiplier), a direct electron detector, an electron multiplier CCD (EMCCD), an sCMOS (scientific CMOS) or a phosphor screen is used as the electron optics (26, 28, 30, 32)…” These statements are inconsistent because MCP/EMCCD/sCMOS/phosphor are generally known as detectors instead of “electron optics,” and labels 26, 28, 30, and 32 in the figures are designated to lenses.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for exciting the electron” and “means for electron imaging” in claim 30.
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for a “means for exciting the electron” configured to excite the electron is taken to include laser source with laser beam, and equivalents (See Spec. para. [0040]).
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for a “means for electron imaging” with an electron optics and an electron detector is taken to include an extraction/acceleration electrode (metallic lattice), condense lens, objective lens, projective lens, and CCD detector, and equivalents (e.g., MCP/EMCCD/sCMOS/phosphor screen) (See Spec. paras. [0042-0043]).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 17-21, 25, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geelen, et al., “eV-TEM: Transmission electron microscopy in a low energy cathode lens instrument.” Ultramicroscopy, 159, 482–487 (2015) [hereinafter Geelen], in view of Nemanich et al., “Imaging electron emission from diamond and III–V nitride surfaces with photo-electron emission microscopy.” Applied Surface Science, 146(1-4), 287–294 (1999) [hereinafter Nemanich].
Regarding Claim 17:
Geelen teaches a process (Abstract), the process comprising:
arranging the material within a structure of a transmission electron microscope in place of an electron filament (Introduction Section, Pages 1-2 of 6: Geelen develops a transmission electron microscope (ev-TEM) which “is implemented in the existing infrastructure of an … photo emission electron microscope (LEEM/PEEM) called ESCHER…” and operates a mode where electrons originate at the sample via PEEM: “One can extract electrons from the sample by the photoelectric effect with a UV source (…PEEM) …” Thus, in PEEM operation, the sample itself supplies the electrons used for imaging (functionally replacing a conventional filament/gun source);
exciting the electron such that the electron is emitted from the material (Introduction Section, Page 2 of 6: “One can extract electrons from the sample by the photoelectric effect with a UV source (photo emission electron microscopy, PEEM)”);
subsequently carrying out an electron imaging with an electron optics and an electron detector (Introduction Section, Page 2 of 6: “The electron-optical system for forming an image with … photo-emitted electrons”, where “Electrons are accelerated away from the sample towards the objective lens into the imaging system…The imaging system can create an … real space image… on the channel plate detector)”.
Geelen teaches an imaging system, i.e., ev-TEM, that “can project an aberration corrected real space image…of the electrons leaving the sample...” and the ev-TEM enables to imaging the sample in “a spatial resolution of a few nm” (See Abstract of Geelen). However, Geelen does not specifically note that the disclosed process is for spatially resolved localization of a defect in a material, the material has a band gap, the defect having an electron having at least one energy level that lies in the band gap, and imaging the defect with a spatial resolution sub-25 nm.
Nemanich teaches a process for spatially resolved localization of a defect in a material (Introduction Section, Page 2 of 8: teaches using PEEM imaging system to localize defect-associated emission sites on the material - “the PEEM technique images the photoemitted electrons allowing a true relation of the emission to the surface morphology” and “the emitted electrons…can originated from…defect states and/or surface state”),
the material that has a band gap, the defect having an electron having at least one energy level that lies in the band gap (Introduction Section, Page 2 of 8: teaches a band-gap material and defect-associated electronic states within the band gap (“mid-gap defect sub-bands”)- study samples such as “Wide bandgap semiconductors such as diamond and the III-V nitrides…” and the “Proposed mechanism of electrons emission have included emission from mid-gap defect sub-bands…and emission due to sharp asperities (created during dielectric breakdown)”),
imaging the defect with a spatial resolution sub-25 nm (Experimental Section, Page 3: “The PEEM images were obtained using a high resolution microscope…has a demonstrated ultimate lateral resolution of 12 nm).
Geelen teaches a TEM structure (eV-TEM) implemented in a cathode-lens LEEM/PEEM platform (ESCHER), where electrons leaving the sample are accelerated toward an objective lens, imaged by an imaging system, and detected on a channel plate detector, and Geelen explicitly teaches the ev-TEM operation by extracting electrons from the sample via a UV source. Nemanich teaches PEEM imaging the photoemitted electrons, and ties the emission to defect states/mid-gap defect sub-bands, meaning the PEEM imaging provides a spatial map of localized emission sites associated with defects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to apply Nemanich’s teaching of PEEM imaging of emitted electrons from wide-bandgap materials where emission can originate from defect states/mid-gap defect sub-bands, at 12 nm lateral resolution, to the Geelen’s ev-TEM system because Geelen expressly teaches operating the microscope to extract electrons from the sample by the UV photoelectric effect and to form an aberration-corrected real-space image of electrons leaving the sample on a channel plate detector. A POSITA would be motivated to do so because such an implementation is a predictable use of known PEEM defect/emission physics (Nemanich) in a known emitted-electron imaging platform (Geelen) to achieve high-resolution spatial localization of defect associated emission sites.
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 recites a first “wherein” clause reciting “selected from the group consisting of…” and two additional “wherein” clauses joined by “and/or.” Under BRI, “and/or” is interpreted as “or,” such that claim 18 requires one alternative selected from the group recited in the first “wherein” clause, and at least one of the second and the third “wherein” clauses. In this rejection, the Examiner relies on the [diamond] alternative of the first clause, the third [0.1-20 nm resolution] wherein clause and does not rely on the second [thin/2D/bulk] wherein clause.
Geelen in view of Nemanich teach the according to claim 17. Nemanich further teaches wherein the material is a solid body and comprises a substance selected from the group consisting of diamond (Introduction Section, Page 2 of 8: “This study describes the characterization of diamond…with photo-electron emission microscope (PEEM)), and wherein the defect is imaged with a spatial resolution in a range of 0.1 nm to 20 nm (Experimental Section, Page 3 of 8: “The PEEM images were obtained using a high resolution microscope…has a demonstrated ultimate lateral resolution of 12 nm).
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 recites two “wherein” clauses joined by “and/or.” Under BRI, “and/or” is interpreted as “or,” such that claim 19 requires at least one of the first and the second “wherein” clauses. In this rejection, the Examiner relies on both clauses.
Geelen in view of Nemanich teach the process according to claim 17. Geelen further teaches wherein the electron detector is a microchannel plate, a direct electron detector, an electron multiplier CCD, an sCMOS, or a phosphor screen (Introduction Section, Page 2 of 6: “image…on the channel plate detector,” i.e., “the electron detector is a microchannel plate…”); Both Geelen and Nemanich further teach wherein the electron optics is a magnetic element or electromagnetic element (Geelen-Introduction section Page 2 of 6: “deflected…by a magnetic prism array (MPA)”; Nemanich-Experimental Section, Page 3 of 8: “The electrons are injected through an axial aperture…into a five stage electron microscope with magnetic lenses”).
Regarding Claim 20:
Geelen in view of Nemanich teach the process according to claim 17. Both Geelen and Nemanich teach wherein exciting the electron is effected by electromagnetic waves (Geelen- Introduction Section, Page 2 of 6: “extract electrons from the sample by the photoelectric effect with a UV source (…PEEM)”; Nemanich-Experimental Section, Page 3 of 8: “The photoemitted electrons are excited with a UV light source”).
Regarding Claim 21:
Claim 21 recites four “wherein” clauses joined by “and/or.” Under BRI, “and/or” is interpreted as “or,” such that claim 21 requires at least one of the four “wherein” clauses. In this rejection, the Examiner relies on the first [objective lens] and the second [LASER] clauses.
Geelen in view of Nemanich teach the process according to claim 17. Nemanich further teaches wherein exciting the electron is effected by focusing light with an objective lens on a surface region of the material (Experimental Section, Page 3 of 8: “The electrons are injected through an axis aperture…into a five stage electron microscope with magnetic lenses. The optical system consists of a magnetic objective, a transfer lens, a field lens…”); and wherein exciting the electron is effected by a LASER light source (Introduction Section, Page 2: “PEEM images were excited using…a UV-free electron laser).
Regarding Claim 25:
Geelen in view of Nemanich teach the process according to claim 17. Nemanich further teaches wherein the material (18) is doped with a donor (Experimental Section, Page2 of 8: “A p-type sample was prepared with boron doping…nitrogen doping has been shown to exhibit a deep donor at ~1.7 eV from the conduction band).
Regarding Claim 30:
Geelen teaches a device(ev-TEM), the device comprising:
means for electron imaging with an electron optics and an electron detector (Introduction Section, Page 2 of 6: Geelen teaches that emitted electrons are “accelerated away from the sample towards the objective lens and into the imaging system” which then “create an aberration corrected real space image...on the channel plate detector” Thus, Geelen expressly teaches (i) accelerating/extracting emitted electrons away from the sample into (ii) an electron-optical imaging column including at least an objective lens and downstream imaging optics (“imaging system”), and (iii) forming a real-space image at an electron detector (“channel plate detector”). This corresponds to the specification’s disclosed imaging chain (See Spec. paras. [0042-0043), because both configurations use a field/extraction region at the sample, then electron optics including an objective lens and downstream electron-optical imaging, to form an image of electrons leaving the sample at an electron detector. Any difference in naming/partitioning of lenses (e.g., Geelen’s “objective lens” + “imaging system” + “channel plate detector”) vs. the specification’s “condenser/objective/projective” lenses + CCD and equivalents (e.g., microchannel plate detector)) reflects routine implementation detail in electron-optical columns and is an equivalent electron-optical imaging structure performing the same imaging function);
wherein the device comprises a structure of a transmission electron microscope (Abstract: Geelen teaches “a transmission electron microscope…eV-TEM”),
wherein the device is adapted such, that the material can be arranged instead of an electron filament of the transmission electron microscope (Introduction Section, Pages 1-2 of 6: the eV-TEM “is implemented in the existing infrastructure of an … photo emission electron microscope (LEEM/PEEM) called ESCHER…” and operates a mode where electrons originate at the sample via PEEM: “One can extract electrons from the sample by the photoelectric effect with a UV source (…PEEM) …” Thus, in PEEM operation, the sample itself supplies the electrons used for imaging (functionally replacing a conventional filament/gun source).
Geelen generally describes excitation with ultraviolet in ev-TEM; ultraviolet illumination alone is not the same specific excitation structure disclosed in the specification (i.e., controlled LASER source and LASER beam). In addition, Geelen does not specifically note that the device is for spatially resolved localization of a defect in a material, and the material having a band gap, the defect having an electron that has at least one energy level that lies in the band gap, and wherein the device is adapted such, that the defect is imaged with a spatial resolution sub-25 nm.
Nemanich teaches a device for spatially resolved localization of a defect in a material (Introduction Section, Page 2 of 8: teaches using PEEM imaging system to localize defect-associated emission sites on the material - “the PEEM technique images the photoemitted electrons allowing a true relation of the emission to the surface morphology” and “the emitted electrons…can originated from…defect states and/or surface state”),
the material that has a band gap, the defect having an electron having at least one energy level that lies in the band gap (Introduction Section, Page 2 of 8: teaches a band-gap material and defect-associated electronic states within the band gap (“mid-gap defect sub-bands”)- “Wide bandgap semiconductors such as diamond and the III-V nitrides…” and “Proposed mechanism of electrons emission have included emission from mid-gap defect sub-bands…and emission due to sharp asperities (created during dielectric breakdown)”)
the device comprises means for exciting the electrons that are configured to excite the electron such that it is emitted from the material (Introduction Section, Page 2 of 8 and Experimental Section, Page 3 of 8: Nemanich teaches that “The PEEM techniques images the photoemitted electrons allowing a true relationship of the emission to the surface morphology…PEEM images were exited using…a UV-free electron laser,” “measurements were obtained with …tunable UV light from a free electron laser. The light is focused onto the sample using quartz optics.” Thus, Nemanich ’s excitation is not merely generic “UV light,” but a laser excitation source and beam delivery/focusing arrangement, which is the same type of structure as the specification’s laser source with laser beam directed on to a specific point); and
wherein the device is adapted such, that the defect is imaged with a spatial resolution sub-25 nm (Experimental Section, Page 3 of 8: “The PEEM images were obtained using a high resolution microscope…has a demonstrated ultimate lateral resolution of 12 nm).
Geelen teaches a TEM structure (eV-TEM) implemented in a cathode-lens LEEM/PEEM platform (ESCHER), where electrons leaving the sample are accelerated toward an objective lens, imaged by an imaging system, and detected on a channel plate detector, and Geelen explicitly teaches PEEM operation by extracting electrons from the sample via a UV source. Nemanich teaches PEEM imaging the photoemitted electrons, and ties the emission to defect states/mid-gap defect sub-bands, meaning the PEEM imaging provides a spatial map of localized emission sites associated with defects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to apply Nemanich’s teaching of PEEM imaging of emitted electrons from wide-bandgap materials where emission can originate from defect states/mid-gap defect sub-bands, at 12 nm lateral resolution, to the Geelen’s TEM-PEEM system because Geelen expressly teaches operating the microscope to extract electrons from the sample by the UV photoelectric effect and to form an aberration-corrected real-space image of electrons leaving the sample on a channel plate detector. A POSITA would be motivated to do so because such an implementation is a predictable use of known PEEM defect/emission physics (Nemanich) in a known emitted-electron imaging platform (Geelen) to achieve high-resolution spatial localization of defect associated emission sites.
Claims 22, 26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geelen in view of Nemanich, further in view of US 2017/0038411 A1 [hereinafter Yacobi]
Regarding Claim 22:
Geelen in view of Nemanich teach the process according to claim 17. The combined references do not specifically note that the process further comprising determining a spin state of the electron by additional excitation with electromagnetic waves, by electromagnetic fields, by thermal processes, or by thermionic processes. Yacobi teaches determining a spin state of the electron by additional excitation with both electromagnetic waves and by electromagnetic fields (paras. [0010-0011, and 0025]: the magnetic resonance imaging method provides “single electron-spin sensitivity” and can measure ubiquitous “‘dark’ spins,” which described as “dark electronic spin in the sample.” The imaging process “comprises the steps of applying a driving radio-frequency signal to the sample, applying a microwave signal to the NV center and applying a magnetic-field gradient to the sample with a scanning magnetic tip,” and that the dark spins are measured “by detecting magnetic resonance of the NV center,” as used in the art, a “driving RF/microwave signal applied to spins” is an excitation that driven resonance transitions).
It would be obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Yacobi’s spin-state determination into Geelen/Nemanich defect-localization process, since doing so would provide additional, routinely desired characterization of the localized defect/emission site (spin information) with predictable result using well-known spin-resonance techniques.
Regarding Claim 26:
Geelen in view of Nemanich teach the process according to claim 17. The combined references do not specifically note that the process further comprising creating the defect by at least one of implantation after production of the material, doping during production of the material, or electron irradiation during or after production of the material. Yacobi teaches creating the defect by implantation after production of the material (para. [0011]: using a sample of “diamond having at least one shallowly implanted nitrogen-vacancy (NV) center,” where the NV center is considered as a defect and “shallowly implanted” indicates the defect is formed by implantation in a pre-formed diamond).
It would be obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to create the detect/emission center in Geelen/Nemanich material by implantation after production as taught by Yacobi, since implantation is a conventional and controllable way to introduce localized defect centers for subsequent localization/imaging, yielding the predictable result of producing dentilabial emission/spin-active sites.
Regarding Claim 31:
Geelen in view of Nemanich teach the device according to claim 30. The combined references do not specifically note that the wherein the device is a component of a quantum computer or a quantum sensor. Yacobi teaches wherein the device is a component of a quantum computer or a quantum sensor (para. [0012]: explicitly frames NV spin sensing as applicable to “read-out of … quantum bits” and spin-based quantum applications).
It would be obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to employ the Geelen/Nemanich device as a component of a quantum computer or quantum sensor as described by Yacobi, since such system rely on controllable defect/spin centers and benefit from localizing/characterizing those center; integrating the device into a quantum platform is a straightforward application of the known device to its recognized quantum sensing/bit-readout use, with predicable results.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geelen in view of Nemanich, further in view of Escher et al., “NanoESCA: a novel energy filter for imaging x-ray photoemission spectroscopy.” Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 17(16), S1329–S1338 (2004) [hereinafter Escher].
Regarding Claim 23:
Geelen in view of Nemanich teach the process according to claim 17. The combined references do not specifically note that further comprising electrically grounding the material. Escher teaches electrically grounding the material (Description of the instrument Section, Page 5 of 10: teaches the sample/material being near potential – “sample near ground potential and an extractor anode that is kept at up to 16 kV,” where holding the sample at a defined ground-reference potential inherently requires grounding/reference connection).
Geelen teaches the main ev-TEM imaging structure and electron-optical imaging chain. Escher teaches an enhance PEEM system (NanoESCA) with an immersion objective lens arrangement in which the sample is near ground potential and an extractor anode is biased up to about +16 eV to generate extraction field. Therefore, it would be obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Geelen’s ev-TEM configuration to use Escher’s ground-sample/extractor-anode bias scheme because both references seek to create the same extraction/acceleration field for PEEM imaging, and placing the high voltage on the extractor anode instead of the sample is a routine, interchangeable design choice that yield the predictable result of the maintaining the sample near ground while preserving the required field (set by potential difference).
Regarding Claim 24:
Geelen in view of Nemanich teach the process according to claim 17. The combined references do not specifically note that applying a positive bias voltage to a grid or a tip above a surface of the material. Escher teaches applying a positive bias voltage to a grid or a tip above a surface of the material (Description of the instrument Section, Page 5 of 10: teaches applying a positive bias voltage (16 kV) to an extractor anode (extraction electrode) above the sample surface, which corresponds to the claimed “grid/tip,” since an “anode” above the sample functions as an extraction electrode and is a type of biased element above the surface that performs the claimed role of a grid/tip).
It would be obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Geelen’s ev-TEM configuration to apply Escher’s positive biased extractor anode above the sample because both references create the same electron-extraction field for PEEP imaging, and placing the high voltage on the extractor rather than the sample is an interchangeable implementation that predictably provides the extraction/acceleration field.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geelen in view of Nemanich, further in view of Schmidt et al., “First experimental proof for aberration correction in XPEEM.” Ultramicroscopy, 126, 23–32 (2013) [hereinafter Schmidt].
Regarding Claim 27:
Geelen in view of Nemanich teach the process according to claim 17. The combined references do not specifically note that the process further comprising providing a thin metallic or a metal-coordinated molecular conductive layer on a surface of the material, wherein the layer comprises one to five monolayers. Schmidt teaches providing a thin metallic conductive layer on a surface of the material, wherein the layer comprises one to five monolayers (Section 2.4 Sample preparation, Page 3 of 10: on the sample surface, “about one monolayer of Au was deposited at 900K in UHV, forming a one to two monolayer thick film with holes uncovered by Au monolayer. These test objects provided strong chemical contrast”.
It would be obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Schmidt’s monolayer-scale Au surface film into Geelen/Nemanich process because Schmidt teaches such monolayer Au patches as a known surface preparation that provides “strong chemical contrast” for XPEEM imaging, and applying the same predictable surface-conditioning technique to the Geelen/Nemanich emission-imaging setup would likewise predictably facilitate stable, high-contrast electron-emission imaging and localization.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geelen in view of Nemanich, further in view of US 2004/0183530 A1[hereinafter Butters].
Regarding Claim 28:
Claim 28 recites two clauses joined by “and/or.” Under BRI, “and/or” is interpreted as “or,” such that claim 28 requires the at least one of the two clauses. In this rejection, the Examiner relies on both the [magnetic shielding] clause and the [Faraday case] clauses.
Geelen in view of Nemanich teach the process according to claim 17. The combined references do not specifically note that the process further comprising surrounding the material by a magnetic shielding, and/or surrounding the material by a Faraday cage. Butters teaches surrounding the material by a magnetic shielding and a Faraday cage (paras. [0090, 0086-0089]: “a sample of the substance 200 to be measured is placed on the sample tray 50 and the sample tray is placed within the farady cage,” a “sample chamber or farad cage 706” nested within the detection unit, and further discloses an outer cage/shield arrangement providing magnetic shielding, including “outer cage 702…configured as a magnetic field” and/or a “shield 712” that provides magnetic field shielding, i.e., surrounding the material by a Faraday cage and/or by magnetic shielding”).
It would be obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Butters’ Faraday cage and/magnetic shielding environment into the Geelen/Nemanich electron-emission imaging process, since shielding is a routine technique to reduce environmental electrical/magnetic inference in sensitive electron/spin related measurements, yielding predictable improvements in signal stability and measurement fidelity.
Regarding Claim 29:
Geelen in view of Nemanich teach the process according to claim 17. The combined references do not specifically note that the process further comprising cooling the material in a temperature range from 0.1 K to 210 K. Butters teaches cooling the material in a temperature range from 0.1 K to 210 K (paras. [0086-0089]: teaches cooling/temperature control of the sample/material during measurement. The sample chamber “may be temperature controlled to a preset temperature” and includes temperature sensors configured to “maintain a certain temperature inside the sample chamber.” A shield encircles encompasses the sample chamber is surrounded by a cryogen layer which “is at an operating temperature of 4 degrees Kelvin.” Since 4 K is within the claimed range 0.1 k to 210K, Butters teaches cooling the material to a temperature within the recited range).
It would be obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to cool the material during the Geelen/Nemanich electron-emission imaging process as taught by Butters, since cooling is a routine way to reduce thermal noise and stabilize measurements of localized electronic/emission phenomena, yielding predictable improvements in imaging stability and signal-to-noise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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 on (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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881