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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the electron backscatter diffraction pattern applied to substantially the same irradiation area” should read “the electron backscatter diffraction pattern detected from the same irradiation area”. 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations 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 limitations are: “operation controller”, “structure analyzer” and “crystallinity evaluator” in claim 1, and “grain size analyzer” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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
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 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man (US 20140291511 A1) in view of Dobashi (US 20220230844 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Man teaches an electron microscope (charged particle beam apparatus 100, fig. 1) comprising:
A subject holder (61) having a subject installation surface on which the subject (sample 2) having a surface is placed;
An electron beam irradiation source (electron beam irradiation system 30) configured to irradiate, with an electron beam, an irradiation area of the surface of the subject;
A first detector (secondary charged particle detector 70) configured to detect secondary electrons emitted from the subject by irradiation with the electron beam;
A second detector (scattered electron detector 40) configured to detect an electron backscatter diffraction pattern generated from the subject by irradiation with the electron beam (measuring back-scatter diffraction image, [0036]); and
A control analyzer including:
An operation controller (90) configured to control an operation of the subject holder, and
A structure analyzer (crystal orientation information generation unit 90A) configured to analyze a crystal structure of the subject based on the electron backscatter diffraction pattern,
Wherein the subject holder is rotatable about an axis parallel to a direction of irradiation with the electron beam and is able to incline the subject installation surface relative to a plane perpendicular to the direction of irradiation with the electron beam (rotation axes L1 and L2, [0028]).
Man does not teach that the structure analyzer has a crystallinity evaluator configured to calculate a degree of similarity between the electron backscatter diffraction pattern and a crystal orientation based on a known crystal structure, or that the operation controller is configured to control at least one of a rotation operation or inclination operation of a subject holder based on a degree of similarity.
Dobashi teaches an electron beam system for evaluating a sample, having a structure analyzer having a crystallinity evaluator configured to calculate a degree of similarity between a diffraction pattern and a crystal orientation based on a known crystal structure (comparing to reference image, Abstract, [0081-0082]), and an operation controller configured to control at least one of a rotation operation or an inclination operation of a sample holder based on the degree of similarity (control inclination based on evaluation result, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the current claims to perform sample alignment in the system of Man by comparing the diffraction pattern to a reference pattern as taught by Dobashi, as this is a known means of precisely aligning a crystalline sample for subsequent processing which could be applied to the backscatter detection system of Man which detects a similar crystal image (i.e. Kikuchi lines, Man [0038], Dobashi Abstract), with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 5, Man a crystal evaluation method comprising:
Irradiating, with an electron beam, an irradiation area of a surface of a subject (sample 2) placed on a surface of a subject placed on a subject installation surface of a subject holder (61);
Detecting an electron backscatter diffraction pattern generated from the subject by irradiation with the electron beam (measuring back-scatter diffraction image, [0036]); and
The subject holder being rotatable about an axis parallel to a direction of irradiation with the electron beam and able to incline the subject installation surface relative to a plane perpendicular to the direction of irradiation with the electron beam (rotation axes L1 and L2, [0028]).
Man does not teach calculating a degree of similarity between the electron backscatter diffraction pattern and a crystal orientation based on a known crystal structure, or controlling at least one of a rotation operation or an inclination operation of a subject holder based on a degree of similarity.
Dobashi teaches an electron beam system for evaluating a sample, having a structure analyzer having a crystallinity evaluator configured to calculate a degree of similarity between a diffraction pattern and a crystal orientation based on a known crystal structure (comparing to reference image, Abstract, [0081-0082]), and an operation controller configured to control at least one of a rotation operation or an inclination operation of a sample holder based on the degree of similarity (control inclination based on evaluation result, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the current claims to perform sample alignment in the system of Man by comparing the diffraction pattern to a reference pattern as taught by Dobashi, as this is a known means of precisely aligning a crystalline sample for subsequent processing which could be applied to the backscatter detection system of Man which detects a similar crystal image (i.e. Kikuchi lines, Man [0038], Dobashi Abstract), with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 6, Man teaches that the electron beam irradiation source includes an electron source configured to generate electrons ([0036]).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man in view of Dobashi and in further view of Penman (US 20150369760 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Man and Dobashi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Man and Dobashi do not teach that the degree of similarity is a MAD value which is an average angular difference between a Kikuchi line of the electron backscatter diffraction pattern and a Kikuchi line of the known crystal structure.
Penman teaches evaluating the similarity of diffraction patterns using a MAD value which is an average angular difference between a Kikuchi line of the electron backscatter diffraction pattern and a Kikuchi line of the known crystal structure (determining a degree of coincidence between crystal orientations based on average angular deviation, [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Man and Dobashi to perform the similarity evaluation using the method of Penman, as Penman teaches that this is a precise method of crystal analysis with reduced computational load ([0008]) which uses the Kikuchi lines that are taught to be detected by Man and Dobashi as described above.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man in view of Dobashi and in further view of Amino (US 20200066480 A1).
Regarding claims 7-9, Man and Dobashi teach all the limitations of claim 6 as described above. Ma and Dobashi do not teach that the electron source includes an electron gun, a lens configured to focus the electron beam, or a scanning deflector configured to deflect the electron beam.
Amino teaches an electron beam backscattered diffraction system having an electron gun (221), a lens configured to focus the electron beam (objective lens 223), or a scanning deflector (deflection coil 225) configured to deflect the electron beam ([0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Man to have the electron gun, lens and scanning deflector of Amino, as Man teaches that the electron irradiation system scans and focuses the beam ([0036]) and these are known common parts of an electron beam system which can achieve that purpose with no unexpected result.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man in view of Dobashi and in further view of Wright (US 20160216219 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Man and Dobashi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Man and Dobashi do not teach a grain size analyzer configured to detect crystalline grain size in an object.
Wright teaches an electron beam system configured to detect a crystalline grain size in an object ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Man and Dobashi to have the grain size analyzer of Wright, as this is a known step of determining the structure of a crystalline sample commonly performed in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or make obvious a system which calculates the MAD value for each of electron backscatter diffraction patterns from each of plurality of irradiation areas in a small area of a crystal, and controls a subject holder when all the MAD values for the diffraction patterns are greater than a threshold.
In the prior art, Penman and Day (US 12,099,024 B2) teach the use of MAD values to evaluate the similarity of crystalline diffraction patterns, but do not teach evaluating the MAD values of multiple irradiation areas in a small area of a crystal and controlling a subject holder when all of them are greater than a threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881