DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered. In view of the amendments to claims 1 and 7, a new grounds of rejection is made.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakawa (US 20190088461 A1) in view of Saito, et. al. (US 20190341242 A1), hereinafter Saito, Akutsu, et. al. (US 20170076930 A1), hereinafter Akutsu, Maeno (US 20100225930 A1), Chang, et. al. (US 20220416497 A1), hereinafter Chang, and Zhang, et. al. (CN 112260056 A), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 1, Asakawa teaches a mass spectrometer comprising:
a beam irradiator configured to emit an ion beam to irradiate a beam irradiation region along a surface of a sample (beam irradiator 10 irradiates a sample 100, [0018], Fig. 1);
a laser irradiator configured to emit laser light to irradiate a laser irradiation region above the sample (laser irradiator 20 irradiates space above sample 100, [0019], Fig. 1);
a mass spectrometry unit configured to detect a mass of ion particles released from the sample by the ion beam and ionized by the laser light (mass spectrometer 30, [0017], [0023], Fig. 1); and
a controller (controller 40, [0017], Fig. 1) configured to:
adjust a position of the laser irradiation region for each irradiation interval of the laser light ([0020], [0054], Fig. 7),
wherein the laser irradiator (laser irradiator 20, [0019], Fig. 1) has a light source configured to emit the laser light (light source 21, [0019], Fig. 1) and an optical path adjustment unit configured to change an optical path of the laser light (lens 22 and lens drive 23, [0019]-[0020], Fig. 1), and the optical path adjustment unit includes a lens.
Asakawa does not explicitly teach that the ion beam is pulsed or the laser light is pulsed.
Saito teaches a pulsed ion beam ([0014]) and pulsed laser light ([0023]).
Saito modifies Asakawa by suggesting an ion beam with pulses and laser light with pulses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Saito because femtosecond laser light improves the ionization yield, (Saito, [0003]) and given a pulsed laser beam one of ordinary skill in the art would pulse the ion beam to properly synchronize the sputtering with the laser irradiation for efficient ionization (Saito, Fig. 2).
Asakawa does not explicitly teach the optical path adjustment unit includes an electro-optical effect switch and that the lens is aspherical.
Akutsu teaches that in addition to a lens, the optical path adjustment unit includes an electro-optical effect switch (laser radiating part 40 includes birefringence modulator 45, which may be an element that changes a polarization direction of incident light, such as a Pockels cell or a Kerr cell, and a condenser lens 46, 47, [0024], Fig. 2).
Akutsu modifies the combination by suggesting that the optical path adjustment unit includes a birefringence modulator such as a Pockels cell or a Kerr cell in addition to a lens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Akutsu because a laser irradiating part that includes a birefringence modulator such as a Pockels cell and lenses can switch the polarization direction of incident light in order to affect the photon density of the laser light and condense the light on or above the irradiation surface. The elements ultimately work together to adjust a polarization state and length and direction of an optical path of a laser beam, (Akutsu, [0024], [0027]-[0030], Abstract), which is also the problem the instant application is aiming to solve (optical path adjustment unit of the instant invention is configured to change an optical path of the laser light).
Although Asakawa and Akutsu taught lenses, they did not specifically mention the lens as being aspherical.
Maeno teaches an aspherical lens (lens 403 is an aspherical lens, [0040]).
Maeno modifies the combination by suggesting an aspherical lens in the interpreted optical path adjustment unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Maeno because an aspherical lens can emit laser light as substantially parallel light ([0040]), solving the same problem that the aspherical lens of the instant invention solves, as detailed in paragraph [0020] (last sentence) of the specification of the instant application, and generally contributing to the directing of the optical path of the laser light.
Although Akutsu teaches an electro-optical effect switch (specifically a Pockels cell or Kerr cell are mentioned as examples), Akutsu does not provide details of the Pockels cell. Note that the function and structure of electro-optical effect switches, such as Pockels cells, are well-known devices. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to set up and orient the Pockels cell of the combination in the interpreted optical path adjustment unit to achieve the claim limitation stating “wherein the electro-optical effect switch includes: (i) an electro-optical crystal having rectangular prism shape having first to sixth surfaces, the first surface facing the light source, the second surface opposite to the first surface facing the aspherical lens, the third to sixth surfaces perpendicular to the first and second surfaces, with the third surface and fifth surface opposite to each other, and with the fourth surface and sixth surface opposite to each other; and (ii) a variable voltage source connected to the third surface and fifth surface of the electro-optical crystal.” See Chang, which teaches a BBO Pockels cell 23, ([0071], [0066]) and is shown as having a rectangular prism shape in Fig. 2A and has a variable voltage supplier 24, ([0074]-[0078]). See also Fig. 1 of Zhang, which shows an electro-optical crystal 30, between a semiconductor laser diode 10 (light source) and focusing lens 50, such that one surface (left surface) of the electro-optical crystal faces the diode, the opposite surface (right surface) faces the lens, and the voltage source is shown as being connected to the top and bottom surfaces.
One of ordinary skill in the art would look to Chang and Zhang to provide details of a Pockels cell (although Akutsu taught a Pockells cell, specific details of the Pockells cell were not provided by Akutsu), a well-known device, that would lead them to the claimed orientation of the Pockels cell.
Regarding claim 7, Asakawa teaches a method, comprising:
Emitting, by a beam irradiator, an ion beam to irradiate a beam irradiation region along a surface of a sample (beam irradiator 10 irradiates a sample 100 with ion beam 201, [0018], Fig. 1);
Emitting, by a laser irradiator, laser light to irradiate a laser irradiation region above the sample (laser irradiator 20 irradiates space above sample 100, [0019], Fig. 1);
Detecting, by a mass spectrometry unit, a mass of ion particles released from the sample by the ion beam and ionized by the laser light (mass spectrometer 30, [0017], [0023], Fig. 1); and
Adjusting, by a controller, a position of the laser irradiation region for each irradiation interval of the laser light (controller 40, [0020], [0054], Fig. 7),
wherein the laser irradiator (laser irradiator 20, [0019], Fig. 1) has a light source configured to emit the laser light (light source 21, [0019], Fig. 1) and an optical path adjustment unit configured to change an optical path of the laser light (lens 22 and lens drive 23, [0019]-[0020], Fig. 1), and the optical path adjustment unit includes a lens.
Asakawa does not explicitly teach that the ion beam is pulsed or the laser light is pulsed.
Saito teaches a pulsed ion beam ([0014]) and pulsed laser light ([0023]).
Saito modifies Asakawa by suggesting an ion beam with pulses and laser light with pulses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Saito because femtosecond laser light improves the ionization yield, (Saito, [0003]) and given a pulsed laser beam one of ordinary skill in the art would pulse the ion beam to properly synchronize the sputtering with the laser irradiation for efficient ionization (Saito, Fig. 2).
Asakawa does not explicitly teach the optical path adjustment unit includes an electro-optical effect switch and that the lens is aspherical.
Akutsu teaches that in addition to a lens, the optical path adjustment unit includes an electro-optical effect switch (laser radiating part 40 includes birefringence modulator 45, which may be an element that changes a polarization direction of incident light, such as a Pockels cell or a Kerr cell, and a condenser lens 46, 47, [0024], Fig. 2).
Akutsu modifies the combination by suggesting that the optical path adjustment unit includes a birefringence modulator such as a Pockels cell or a Kerr cell in addition to a lens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Akutsu because a laser irradiating part that includes a birefringence modulator such as a Pockels cell and lenses can switch the polarization direction of incident light in order to affect the photon density of the laser light and condense the light on or above the irradiation surface. The elements ultimately work together to adjust a polarization state and length and direction of an optical path of a laser beam, (Akutsu, [0024], [0027]-[0030], Abstract), which is also the problem the instant application is aiming to solve (optical path adjustment unit of the instant invention is configured to change an optical path of the laser light).
Although Asakawa and Akutsu taught lenses, they did not specifically mention the lens as being aspherical.
Maeno teaches an aspherical lens (lens 403 is an aspherical lens, [0040]).
Maeno modifies the combination by suggesting an aspherical lens in the interpreted optical path adjustment unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Maeno because an aspherical lens can emit laser light as substantially parallel light ([0040]), solving the same problem that the aspherical lens of the instant invention solves, as detailed in paragraph [0020] (last sentence) of the specification of the instant application, and generally contributing to the directing of the optical path of the laser light.
Although Akutsu teaches an electro-optical effect switch (specifically a Pockels cell or Kerr cell are mentioned as examples), Akutsu does not provide details of the Pockels cell. Note that the function and structure of electro-optical effect switches, such as Pockels cells, are well-known devices. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to set up and orient the Pockels cell of the combination in the interpreted optical path adjustment unit to achieve the claim limitation stating “wherein the electro-optical effect switch includes: (i) an electro-optical crystal having rectangular prism shape having first to sixth surfaces, the first surface facing the light source, the second surface opposite to the first surface facing the aspherical lens, the third to sixth surfaces perpendicular to the first and second surfaces, with the third surface and fifth surface opposite to each other, and with the fourth surface and sixth surface opposite to each other; and (ii) a variable voltage source connected to the third surface and fifth surface of the electro-optical crystal.” See Chang, which teaches a BBO Pockels cell 23, ([0071], [0066]) and is shown as having a rectangular prism shape in Fig. 2A and has a variable voltage supplier 24, ([0074]-[0078]). See also Fig. 1 of Zhang, which shows an electro-optical crystal 30, between a semiconductor laser diode 10 (light source) and focusing lens 50, such that one surface (left surface) of the electro-optical crystal faces the diode, the opposite surface (right surface) faces the lens, and the voltage source is shown as being connected to the top and bottom surfaces.
One of ordinary skill in the art would look to Chang and Zhang to provide details of a Pockels cell, a well-known device, that would lead them to the claimed orientation of the Pockels cell.
Claims 2, 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakawa (US 20190088461 A1) in view of Saito (US 20190341242 A1), Akutsu (US 20170076930 A1), Maeno (US 20100225930 A1), Chang (US 20220416497 A1), and Zhang (CN 112260056 A), further in view of Sakamoto, et. al. (WO 2018173935 A1; see translated document from Espacenet for paragraph numbers), hereinafter Sakamoto.
Regarding claim 2, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein a position of the beam irradiation region is changed for each irradiation interval of the ion beam, and the controller is configured to adjust the position of the laser irradiation region based on the change in the position of the beam irradiation region.
Sakamoto teaches wherein a position of the beam irradiation region is changed for each irradiation interval of the ion beam ([0031] teaches scanning the surface of the sample with the ion beam by moving the ion beam source or the pedestal).
Sakamoto modifies the combination by suggesting that the ion beam is scanned over the sample such that a beam irradiation region is changed for each irradiation interval of the ion beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sakamoto because scanning the sample allows for irradiating the ion beam over the surface of the sample to generate neutral particles for ionization and analysis and because it enables imaging on a micro-scale, (Sakamoto, [0031]).
Although Asakawa teaches the controller is configured to adjust the position of the laser irradiation region (Asakawa, [0019]-[0022], Asakawa does not teach ‘based on the change in the position of the beam irradiation region.’ Sakamoto teaches adjusting the position of the laser irradiation region based on the change in the position of the beam irradiation region ([0041] teaches laser light is focused to coincide with the irradiation space where the ion beam was irradiated onto the sample.)
Sakamoto further modifies the combination by suggesting that the controller is configured to adjust the position of the laser irradiation region based on the change in position of the beam irradiation region because Sakamoto teaches the ion beam is scanned (moved), and that the laser beam is controlled to irradiated the sample in the same space that the ion beam irradiated the sample. Consequently, the adjustment is based on any movement of the beam irradiation region since the positions must match.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings of Sakamoto because having the laser irradiation region match the ion beam irradiation region allows the sputtered atoms in the ionization space to be ionized for mass analysis, (Sakamoto, [0041]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein a position of the beam irradiation region is changed for each irradiation interval of the ion beam, the method further comprises: adjusting the position of the laser irradiation region based on the change in the position of the beam irradiation region.
Sakamoto teaches wherein a position of the beam irradiation region is changed for each irradiation interval of the ion beam ([0031] teaches scanning the surface of the sample with the ion beam by moving the ion beam source or the pedestal).
Sakamoto modifies the combination by suggesting that the ion beam is scanned over the sample such that a beam irradiation region is changed for each irradiation interval of the ion beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sakamoto because scanning the sample allows for irradiating the ion beam over the surface of the sample to generate neutral particles for ionization and analysis and because it enables imaging on a micro-scale, (Sakamoto, [0031]).
Although Asakawa teaches the controller is configured to adjust the position of the laser irradiation region (Asakawa, [0019]-[0022], Asakawa does not teach ‘based on the change in the position of the beam irradiation region.’ Sakamoto teaches adjusting the position of the laser irradiation region based on the change in the position of the beam irradiation region ([0041] teaches laser light is focused to coincide with the irradiation space where the ion beam was irradiated onto the sample.)
Sakamoto further modifies the combination by suggesting adjusting the position of the laser irradiation region based on the change in position of the beam irradiation region because Sakamoto teaches the ion beam is scanned (moved), and that the laser beam is controlled to irradiated the sample in the same space that the ion beam irradiated the sample. Consequently, the adjustment is based on any movement of the beam irradiation region since the positions must match.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings of Sakamoto because having the laser irradiation region match the ion beam irradiation region allows the sputtered atoms in the ionization space to be ionized for mass analysis, (Sakamoto, [0041]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to adjust the position of the laser irradiation region such that the laser irradiation region overlaps the beam irradiation region.
Sakamoto teaches wherein the controller is configured to adjust the position of the laser irradiation region such that the laser irradiation region overlaps the beam irradiation region ([0041]).
Sakamoto modifies the combination by suggesting the controller is configured to adjust the laser irradiation region to overlap with the ion beam irradiation region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings of Sakamoto because having the laser irradiation region match the ion beam irradiation region allows the sputtered atoms in the ionization space to be ionized for mass analysis, (Sakamoto, [0041]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination does not explicitly teach further comprising: adjusting the position of the laser irradiation region such that the laser irradiation region overlaps the beam irradiation region.
Sakamoto teaches adjusting the position of the laser irradiation region such that the laser irradiation region overlaps the beam irradiation region ([0041]).
Sakamoto modifies the combination by suggesting adjusting the laser irradiation region to overlap with the ion beam irradiation region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings of Sakamoto because having the laser irradiation region match the ion beam irradiation region allows the sputtered atoms in the ionization space to be ionized for mass analysis, (Sakamoto, [0041]).
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakawa (US 20190088461 A1) in view of Saito (US 20190341242 A1), Akutsu (US 20170076930 A1), Maeno (US 20100225930 A1), Chang (US 20220416497 A1), and Zhang (CN 112260056 A), further in view of Loboda, et. al. (US 20150008313 A1), hereinafter Loboda.
Regarding claim 6, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein a width of the pulses of the laser light is approximately 100 fs.
Loboda teaches wherein a width of the pulses of the laser light is approximately 100 fs (Abstract teaches pulsewidths in a range of 2 fs to 1 ps (1000 fs). This range includes 100 fs.).
Loboda renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 11, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein a width of the pulses of the laser light is approximately 100 fs.
Loboda teaches wherein a width of the pulses of the laser light is approximately 100 fs (Abstract teaches pulsewidths in a range of 2 fs to 1 ps (1000 fs). This range includes 100 fs.).
Loboda renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakawa (US 20190088461 A1) in view of Saito (US 20190341242 A1), Akutsu (US 20170076930 A1), Maeno (US 20100225930 A1), Chang (US 20220416497 A1), and Zhang (CN 112260056 A), further in view of Oh, et. al. (WO 2017171176 A1), hereinafter Oh.
Regarding claim 5, although Asakawa teaches wherein the controller is configured to adjust the position of the laser irradiation region ([0017], [0020], [0054], Fig. 1, Fig. 7), the combination does not teach wherein the controller is configured to adjust the position of the laser irradiation region while the mass spectrometry unit detects the mass of the ion particles.
Oh teaches wherein the controller is configured to adjust the position of the laser irradiation region while the mass spectrometry unit detects the mass of the ion particles ([0041] teaches performing mass analysis while irradiating the laser to each part of the sample (laser irradiation position is moving)).
Oh modifies the combination by suggesting that adjusting the laser irradiation position happens concurrently while the mass analysis is being performed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Oh because doing so allows for the materials composition of the portion of the sample irradiated with the laser to be determined (Oh, [0041]) and reduces the analysis time (Oh, [0032]), solving the same problem as the instant invention (see paragraph [0024], last sentence of the instant application specification).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakawa (US 20190088461 A1) in view of Saito (US 20190341242 A1), Akutsu (US 20170076930 A1), Maeno (US 20100225930 A1), Chang (US 20220416497 A1), Zhang (CN 112260056 A), and Sakamoto (WO 2018173935 A1), further in view of Oh (WO 2017171176 A1).
Regarding claim 10, although Asakawa teaches adjusting the position of the laser irradiation region ([0017], [0020], [0054], Fig. 1, Fig. 7), Asakawa in view of Saito, and Sakamoto does not teach adjusting the position of the laser irradiation region while detecting the mass of the ion particles.
Oh teaches adjusting the position of the laser irradiation region while detecting the mass of the ion particles ([0041] teaches performing mass analysis while irradiating the laser to each part of the sample (laser irradiation position is moving)).
Oh modifies the combination by suggesting that adjusting the laser irradiation position happens concurrently while the mass detection/analysis is being performed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Oh because doing so allows for the materials composition of the portion of the sample irradiated with the laser to be determined (Oh, [0041]) and reduces the analysis time (Oh, [0032]), solving the same problem as the instant invention (see paragraph [0024], last sentence of the instant application specification).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights