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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/29/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ollinger (EP 2 741 309 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ollinger discloses an x-ray analysis apparatus, including:
a) an x-ray source for irradiating a sample 9 with x-rays, where the x-ray source includes an anode 5 for generating x-rays and a cathode 2 for emitting an electron beam 3 towards the anode 5 to irradiate an irradiated area on a target surface of the anode 5;
b) a steering arrangement 10 for positioning the irradiated area on the target surface of the anode 5;
c) a processor configured to receive x-ray analysis information, and to determine a change in position of the irradiated area on the target surface based on the x-ray analysis information (pars.0028-0029);
d) a controller configured to control the steering arrangement 10 to move the irradiated area on the target surface according to the change in position determined by the processor (pars.0028-0029).
Examiner’s Note: the limitation listing various analyses for which the claimed invention may be useful is directed to an intended use of the claimed device which confers no patentable distinction over the prior art (also see par.0014 of Ollinger).
With respect to claim 2, Ollinger further discloses that the x-ray analysis information includes information about the position and/or orientation of at least one component of the x-ray analysis apparatus (optic relative to the focal spot on the anode, par.0028) and/or information relating to the position of an x-ray focal spot on the sample (difference in position reflects misalignment between the optic and the focal spot on the anode, par.0028).
With respect to claim 3, Ollinger further discloses that the steering arrangement 10 is a magnetic steering arrangement (par.0042).
With respect to claim 5, Ollinger further discloses that the effective focal spot size is less than 100 microns (as low as 30 microns, par.0013).
With respect to claim 6, Ollinger further discloses that the processor receives calibration data relating to the x-ray analysis (calibration tables are standard protocol in any field), where:
e) the calibration data includes a data structure that maps an input based on the x-ray analysis information to an adjustment output relating to the change in position (focal spot position for each operation mode, par.0029); and
f) the processor is configured to determine an adjustment output based on the x-ray analysis information and the calibration data, and output the adjustment output (par.0029).
With respect to claim 8, Ollinger further discloses an x-ray optic 6 arranged to receive x-rays from the x-ray source.
With respect to claim 11, Ollinger further discloses that the processor is configured to determine the change in position of the irradiated area on the target surface by receiving, as an input, x-ray analysis information relating to an x-ray flux through the x-ray optic, and determining, as an output, a change in position corresponding to an increase in x-ray flux through the x-ray optic (par.0029).
Regarding claims 13-15, Ollinger discloses a method for controlling an x-ray analysis apparatus configured to focus an electron beam 3 to an irradiated area on a target surface 5, including:
a) receiving, by a processor, x-ray analysis information;
b) determining, by the processor, a change in position of the irradiated area;
c) executing, by a controller, a control signal for controlling a steering arrangement 10 such that the position of the irradiated area is changed according to the change in position determined by the processor (par.0028); where
d) the change in position compensates for a variation, error, or misalignment in the x-ray analysis apparatus (par.0028); and
where the x-ray analysis apparatus includes:
e) an x-ray source for irradiating a sample 9 with x-rays, where the x-ray source includes an anode 5 for generating x-rays and a cathode 2 for emitting an electron beam 3 towards the anode 5 to irradiate an irradiated area on a target surface of the anode 5;
f) a steering arrangement 10 for positioning the irradiated area on the target surface of the anode 5;
g) a processor configured to receive x-ray analysis information, and to determine a change in position of the irradiated area on the target surface based on the x-ray analysis information (pars.0028-0029);
h) a controller configured to control the steering arrangement 10 to move the irradiated area on the target surface according to the change in position determined by the processor (pars.0028-0029).
Regarding claim 16, Ollinger discloses an x-ray analysis apparatus, including:
a) an x-ray source for irradiating a sample 9 with x-rays, where the x-ray source includes an anode 5 for generating x-rays and a cathode 2 for emitting an electron beam 3 towards the anode 5 to irradiate an irradiated area on a target surface of the anode 5;
b) a steering arrangement 10 for positioning the irradiated area on the target surface of the anode 5;
c) an x-ray optic 6 arranged to receive x-rays from the x-ray source;
d) a processor configured to receive x-ray analysis information, and to determine a change in position of the irradiated area on the target surface based on the x-ray analysis information (pars.0028-0029);
e) a controller configured to control the steering arrangement 10 to move the irradiated area on the target surface according to the change in position determined by the processor (pars.0028-0029); and
f) where the change in position is configured to align the x-rays generated by the anode 5 relative to the x-ray optic (par.0028).
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yun (US 2020/0098537 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yun discloses an x-ray analysis apparatus (Figs.2C and 3), including:
a) an x-ray source 20 for irradiating a sample 60 with x-rays, where the x-ray source 20 includes an anode 25 for generating x-rays and a cathode 21 for emitting an electron beam towards the anode 25 to irradiate an irradiated area on a target surface 26a,b,c of the anode 25;
b) a steering arrangement (double-arrow, par.0033) for positioning the irradiated area on the target surface 26a,b,c of the anode 25;
c) a processor configured to receive x-ray analysis information, and to determine a change in position of the irradiated area on the target surface 26a,b,c based on the x-ray analysis information (to match the wavelength of the optics 90a,b,c, Fig.2C, for a given analysis: par.0029);
d) a controller configured to control the steering arrangement to move the irradiated area on the target surface 26 according to the according to the change in position determined by the processor (Figs.2C and 3 and corresponding descriptions).
Examiner’s Note: the limitation stating various analyses for which the claimed invention may be useful is directed to an intended use of the claimed device which confers no patentable distinction over the prior art.
With respect to claim 2, Yun further discloses that the x-ray analysis information includes information about the position and or type of at least one component (optics 90a,b,c,) of the x-ray analysis apparatus.
With respect to claim 3, Yun further discloses that the steering arrangement is a magnetic steering arrangement (par.0033).
With respect to claim 5, Yun further discloses that the effective focal spot size is less than 100 microns (par.0033, as low as 10 microns).
With respect to claim 6, Yun further discloses that the processor receives calibration data relating to the x-ray analysis (calibration tables are standard protocol in any field), where:
e) the calibration data includes a data structure that maps an input based on the x-ray analysis information to an adjustment output relating to the change in position (selecting areas 26a,b,c (Fig.3) to match the spectrum to the optics 90a,b,c (Fig.2C) for a given analysis requiring a particular emission line (par.0029); and
f) the processor is configured to determine an adjustment output based on the x-ray analysis information and the calibration data, and output the adjustment output (pars.0033 and 0036).
With respect to claim 8, Yun further discloses an x-ray optic 90a,b,c arranged to receive x-rays 22 from the x-ray source 20 (Fig.2C).
With respect to claim 12, Yun further discloses that the x-ray optic 90a,b,c is interchangeably coupled to the x-ray source 20 (Fig.2C).
Regarding claim 16, Yun discloses an x-ray analysis apparatus, including:
a) an x-ray source 20 for irradiating a sample 60 with x-rays, where the x-ray source 20 includes an anode 25 for generating x-rays 22 and a cathode 21 for emitting an electron beam towards the anode 25 to irradiate an irradiated area on a target surface 26a,b,c of the anode 25;
b) a steering arrangement (double-arrow, par.0033) for positioning the irradiated area on the target surface 26a,b,c of the anode 25;
c) an x-ray optic 90a,b,c arranged to receive x-rays 22 from the x-ray source 20;
d) a processor configured to receive x-ray analysis information, and to determine a change in position of the irradiated area on the target surface 26a,b,c based on the x-ray analysis information (to match the wavelength of the optics 90a,b,c, Fig.2C, for a given analysis: par.0029);
e) a controller configured to control the steering arrangement to move the irradiated area on the target surface 226a,b,c according to the change in position determined by the processor (Figs.2C and 3 and corresponding descriptions); and
f) where the change in position is configured to align the x-rays 22 generated by the anode 25 relative to the x-ray optic 90 (Figs.2C and 3 and corresponding descriptions).
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 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ollinger, as applied to claim 3 above.
With respect to claim 4, Ollinger does not specifically disclose a quadrupole electron beam steering arrangement.
However, Ollinger does state that it is advantageous to have the electron beam deflection device (par.0021) manipulate the electron beam in two orthogonal directions, providing two linear independent movement directions (par.0022), and that the electron beam deflection may be performed magnetically through energized coils (par.0023).
The skilled artisan readily appreciates the fact that individually controlled, magnetic quadrupole electron beam steering optics have been routine in the art for decades for precise control over deflecting the electron beam in two orthogonal directions specifically for focal spot position and/or focus control.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Ollinger to use magnetic quadrupole beam steering optics, as is routine in the art, in order to provide the precision control over the electron beam in two independent orthogonal directions, as required by Ollinger and as is recognized in the art.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ollinger, as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Yokhin (US 2006/0062351 A1).
With respect to claim 17, Ollinger does not disclose the details of a goniometer, other than the fact that the disclosure is compatible with various diffraction and scattering methodologies, both traditional and grazing-incidence (par.0014).
Yokhin teaches a multimodal x-ray analysis system where the different x-ray analyses (par.0072), including reflectometry, XRD, grazing-incidence XRD, and SAXS (par.0073). The x-ray analysis information that the system of Yokhin provides a processor is the various starting positions and orientations of each component of the goniometer for each analysis type (Figs.1 and 2). In particular, the x-ray analysis information includes information about the orientation of the incident arm 40 relative to the sample stage 24 (Fig.1, par.0073, upper positions are used for XRD, lower positions used for XRR, SAXS, and grazing-incidence XRD). In this manner, the device components are automatically positioned in the preset optimal locations for a given x-ray analysis mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Ollinger to have the x-ray analysis information further include the orientation of the incident arm of a goniometer relative to the sample stage, as taught by Yokhin, in order to streamline the transition between x-ray analyses.
With respect to claim 19, Ollinger does not disclose the details of a goniometer, other than the fact that the disclosure is compatible with various diffraction and scattering methodologies, both traditional and grazing-incidence (par.0014).
Yokhin teaches a multimodal x-ray analysis system where the different x-ray analyses (par.0072), including reflectometry, XRD, grazing-incidence XRD, and SAXS (par.0073). The system of Yokhin provides x-ray analysis information to a processor including the various starting positions and orientations of each component of the goniometer for each analysis type (Figs.1 and 2). In particular, the x-ray analysis information includes information about the orientation of the incident arm 40 relative to the sample stage 24 (Fig.1, par.0073, upper positions are used for XRD, lower positions used for XRR, SAXS, and grazing-incidence XRD; also see at least pars.0088-0091). The x-ray analysis information also includes preset information regarding the initial orientation (rotation) of the sample stage 24 for some analyses (par.0107). In this manner, the device components are automatically positioned in the preset optimal locations for a given x-ray analysis mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Ollinger to have the x-ray analysis information further include the orientation of the sample stage around the first rotation axis, and the orientation of the incident arm about the second rotation axis, as taught by Yokhin, in order to streamline the transition between x-ray analyses.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, 10, 18 and 20 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:
With respect to claim 7, while rotatable sample stages are routine in the art for the types of x-ray analyses disclosed by Ollinger (par.0014), the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation that the processor is configured to determine the adjustment output based on the orientation of the sample stage, as required by the combination of features as claimed. The prior art, particularly Ollinger, focuses on aligning the focal spot on the anode to the x-ray optic, where further alignment to downstream components is handled by known means.
With respect to claims 9 and 18, while x-ray optics and sample stages and goniometers are routine in the art for the types of x-ray analyses disclosed by Ollinger (par.0014), the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation that the processor is configured to determine the adjustment output based on the orientation of the incident arm, as required by the combination of features as claimed. The prior art, particularly Ollinger, focuses on aligning the focal spot on the anode to the x-ray optic, where further alignment to downstream components is handled by known means.
Similarly, with respect to claims 10 and 20, while x-ray optics and sample stages and goniometers are routine in the art for the types of x-ray analyses disclosed by Ollinger (par.0014), the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation that the processor is configured to determine the adjustment output based on the orientation of the incident arm around the second rotation axis and based on the orientation of the sample stage around the first rotation axis, as required by the combination of features as claimed. The prior art, particularly Ollinger, focuses on aligning the focal spot on the anode to the x-ray optic, where further alignment to downstream components is handled by known means.
Examiner’s Note: in general, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests steering the electron beam on the target in order to provide the desired x-ray spot position on a sample based on the detected position of downstream components. The electron beam positioning is either established a priori based on a selected mode of operation, or in a separate alignment phase based on a detector output that indicates the position of the x-ray beam on the sample stage with or without the sample being present.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the anticipation rejections of claims 1, 13 and 16 over Ollinger and/or over Yun have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that:
A) Ollinger neither has a processor nor the corresponding claimed functionality; and
B) Yun neither has a processor nor the corresponding claimed functionality. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A) First, Ollinger discloses that the electron beam is finely adjusted based on two modes of operation, maximizing x-ray flux, or maximizing x-ray flux density, where each mode requires moving the electron beam to a different defined portion of the target (pars.0029 and 0035-0037). The fine-tuned positioning is on the order of microns, and therefore far beyond human manipulation precision. Further, the process is described as “the fine alignment includes iteratively or continuously changing the focal spot position while simultaneously monitoring the photon flux at a detector” (par.0028). This description is consistent with automated procedures insofar as at least the iterative or continuously changing of the focal spot while simultaneously monitoring the detector output is necessarily performed under processor control. As such, the operating mode selection may be entered by an operator, but the subsequent alignment based on the detector feedback must necessarily be done by computer control.
Second, the term “x-ray analysis information” is extremely broad. The term may encompass any sort of information directly or indirectly related to the function of the claimed apparatus. In this case, the mode selection between x-ray flux and x-ray flux density, and/or the detector feedback during alignment for maximizing the x-ray flux or x-ray flux density, are “x-ray analysis information” as broadly as claimed and therefore anticipatory.
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
B) First, Yun states in par.0029 that “Certain embodiments described herein provide fully automated selection of excitation energy and/or focus spot size…”. Therefore, a processor is inherent. That is the definition of “automated selection”.
Second, the claim term “x-ray analysis information” is extremely broad. The term may encompass any sort of information directly or indirectly related to the function of the claimed apparatus. In this case, Yun states in par.0029 that the different targets are selected based on the desired energy for the desired penetration depth within the sample, whether the analysis is for “surface, interface and bulk analysis”. As broadly as claimed, the selection of the analysis, or any information stored for a given selected analysis, anticipate “x-ray analysis information.” Combined with the teachings of full automation, it is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the operator inputs the desired analysis, and the processor selects the required energy for the desired analysis and steers the electron beam to the corresponding target.
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 THOMAS R ARTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2485. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6:30pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached on 571.272.2273. 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.
THOMAS R. ARTMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/THOMAS R ARTMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights