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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I and species A in the reply filed on 4/29/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 12 and 15 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the light guide." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be interpreted as though it depended from claim 15.
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 23 depends from cancelled claim 22. As such, it is indefinite. The claim will be interpreted as though it depended from claim 21.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0241609 A1 [Kuramoto].
Regarding Claim 1:
Kuramoto discloses a particle beam microscope, comprising:
a particle beam source configured to generate a particle beam (Fig. 2 (1));
an objective lens configured to focus the particle beam in an object plane (Fig. 2 (8));
a first scintillator configured to generate light via electrons arriving from the object plane (see annotated Fig. 2 below);
a second scintillator configured to generate light via electrons arriving from the object plane (see annotated Fig. 2 below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
647
827
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first light detector configured to detect light generated by the first scintillator and/or the second scintillator (Fig. 2 (7a));
wherein:
a shortest distance of the second scintillator from the object plane is greater than a shortest distance of the first scintillator from the object plane (in annotated Fig. 2, note that the first scintillator is between the second scintillator and the object plane, thus meeting the above limitation);
a first beam path and a second beam path overlap one another in a cross-sectional area between the first scintillator and the second scintillator and across a beam direction of the particle beam (see further annotated Fig. 2 below);
the first beam path is a beam path of electrons arriving from the object plane by which the second scintillator generates light (see further annotated Fig. 2 below); and
the second beam path is a beam path of light generated by the first scintillator and detected by the first light detector (as demonstrated by Fig. 2 (22a)).
PNG
media_image2.png
650
827
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2:
Kuramoto discloses the particle beam microscope of claim 1, further comprising a mirror surface (Fig. 2 (6a), para 43),
wherein:
the first light detector is configured to detect the light generated by the first scintillator (para 52); and
the mirror surface is in a beam path between the first scintillator and the first light detector to reflect the light generated by the first scintillator (Fig. 2, paras 43, 52).
Regarding Claim 7:
Kuramoto discloses the particle beam microscope of claim 2, further comprising a second light detector (Fig. 2 (7b), wherein the second light detector is configured to detect the light generated by the second scintillator (paras 57-58).
Regarding Claim 8:
Kuramoto discloses the particle beam microscope of claim 7, further comprising a light guide between the second scintillator and the second light detector in a beam path of the light generated by the second scintillator. Para 58.
Regarding Claim 9:
Kuramoto discloses the particle beam microscope of claim 8, wherein the second scintillator comprises a surface optically coupled to a first surface region of the light guide. Para 58.
Regarding Claim 20:
Kuramoto discloses the particle beam microscope of claim 1, wherein the second scintillator comprises a hole, and a portion of a beam path of the particle beam extends through the hole. As shown in Fig. 2 (5)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 11, 21, 24, 32-34 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.
Claims 19 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ROBERT KIM can be reached at 571 272 2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights