DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant’s amendments, filed 20 July 2026, with respect to the claims have been entered. The rejection of claims 9-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments, filed 20 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-20 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found references.
Claim Interpretation
2. The interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f) as of April 21, 2026 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Graupera (US 9087671) in view of Edwards (US 5155368), further in view of Bazargan (US 10181394).
8. Regarding claim 1:
Graupera discloses a charged particle system (claim 1 teaches a charged particle beam system) comprising:
a plasma source configured to generate an ion beam including a plurality of ion species (claim 1 teaches plasma ion source and one or more gas sources for providing multiple gases to the plasma ion source to produce multiple ion species and focusing optics to produce a focused beam of the selected ion species); and
an ion beam optics chamber in fluid communication with the plasma source (column 8 lines 17-26 teaches an ion column 302, corresponding to the ion beam optics chamber, that receives the extracted ions 312 from the plasma chamber 313. The ion column 302 is inherently in fluid communication with the plasma source to receive extracted ions 312), wherein the ion beam optics chamber includes:
an electromagnetic element configured to generate a first magnetic field to separate each of the ion species of the plurality of ion species (the electromagnetic element is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to one or more magnet. Columns 8 lines 17-38 teaches an upper ExB filter 306U that includes a magnetic field source, which is equivalent to one or more magnets disclosed in the instant application because the upper ExB filter 306U that includes a magnetic field source performs the same function in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same result. The magnetic field source produces a magnetic field 322U. Column 9 lines 1-10 teaches that the desired ions are deflected and some of the undesirable ions are undeflected).
Graupera fails to disclose a conductive container configured to measure a first current corresponding to a first ion species of the plurality of ion species.
Edwards dose not specifically disclose the plurality of ion species. However, Edwards teaches a conductive container configured to measure a first current corresponding to a first ion species (column 3 lines 37-50 teaches a metallic beam blanking aperture plate 16 coupling to a current meter 24 for measuring a quantity related to ion beam current. The metallic beam blanking aperture plate 16 coupling to a current meter corresponds to the conductive container under broadest reasonable interpretation as electrical components capable of capturing charged particles and measuring current as disclosed in [0036] of the instant application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Graupera in view of Edwards to include a conductive container configured to measure a first current corresponding to a first ion species of the plurality of ion species. The combination would allow the metallic beam blanking aperture plate 16 coupling to a current meter 24 in Edwards to catch and measure the current of the first ion species isolated by Graupera from the plurality of ion species. Such modification would allow for measuring a quantity related to ion beam current within ion beam column 40 (as taught in Edwards column 3 lines 37-50).
Graupera in view of Edwards does not specifically note measuring a first current corresponding to a first ion species of the plurality of ion species in isolation from other ion species of the plurality of ion species.
Bazargan teaches measuring a first current corresponding to a first ion species of the plurality of ion species in isolation from other ion species of the plurality of ion species (col 16 lines 11-22 teaches that the detector 132 receives the mass-filtered ions 145 and produces an electronic signal, and that the detector 132 counts the total signal for each mass charge, the magnitude of the measured intensity being scaled to determine the concentration of the elements or analyte ions. Because the ions arriving at detector 132 have been mass-filtered, the signal counted for a given, the signal counted for a given mass-to-charge is attributed to that ion species specifically and is thus measured in isolation from other ion species).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Graupera in view of Edwards, further in view of Bazargan to include a conductive container configured to measure a first current corresponding to a first ion species in isolation from other ion species. Bazargan supplies the practice of resolving the measured signal on a per-mass-to-charge basis. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to determine the concentration of a specific elements or analyte ions (Bazargan col 16 lines 11-22).
9. Regarding claim 2:
The modified invention above discloses the charged particle system of claim 1. Graupera in view of Edwards fails to disclose a computer system in communication with the conductive container, wherein the computer system is configured to determine a first mass of a first gas species corresponding to the first ion species based on the first current.
However, Bazargan teaches a computer system (column 16 lines 23-33 teaches one or more controllers 100) in communication with the conductive container (column 16 lines 11-22 teaches the detector 132 receives the mass-filtered ions 145 and produces an electronic signal. For an ion to be detected, the detector must be conductive to allow the flow of electrons triggered by ion species. Column 16 lines 23-33 teaches that controller 100 is operatively connected to the system to receive the data and monitor the operations. Column 2 lines 30-46 teaches system controller that controls data handling), wherein the computer system is configured to determine a first mass of a first gas species corresponding to the first ion species (mass is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as mass flow as disclosed in [0041], [0043] in the instant application. Column 36 claim 5 teaches gas flow optimization and mass calibration. To perform such optimization and calibration, one needs to determine the mass flow. The ion species being measured corresponds to the first ion species) based on the first current (column 16 lines 11-22 teaches the detector 132 counts the total signal for each mass charge. The magnitude of the measured intensity values may be scaled to determine the concentration of the elements or analyte ions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Graupera in view of Edwards, further in view of Bazargan to include a computer system in communication with the conductive container, wherein the computer system is configured to determine a first mass of a first gas species corresponding to the first ion species based on the first current. Such modification would allow for automated optimization routine for flow rate of ionic species (Bazargan columns 16 lines 23-67, col 17 lines 7-16).
10. Regarding claim 5:
The modified invention above discloses the charged particle system of claim 1. Graupera further discloses an aperture plate that defines an aperture (column 8 lines 60-67 teaches an aperture plate 340 with aperture 342) configured to receive the first ion species while the aperture plate is configured to block the other ion species of the plurality of ion species (column 9 lines 1-10 teaches the desired ions, corresponding to the first ion species, pass through aperture 342 and some of the undesirable ions strike aperture plate).
11. Regarding claim 6:
The modified invention above discloses the charged particle system of claim 5. Graupera further discloses an electrostatic element configured to generate an electrostatic field to deflect the first ion species toward the aperture of the aperture plate (the electrostatic element is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to electrostatic lenses. Columns 8 lines 39-59 teaches a lower ExB filter 306L that includes electrodes 314L, which is equivalent to electrostatic lenses disclosed in the instant application because the lower ExB filter 306L that includes electrodes 314L performs the same function in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same result. The electrodes 314L produced an electric field indicated by arrow 320L. Column 9 lines 1-10 teaches that the desired ions, corresponding to the first ion species, are deflected to pass through aperture 342 of aperture plate 340).
12. Regarding claim 8:
The modified invention above discloses the charged particle system of claim 5. Graupera fails to disclose that wherein the aperture plate includes the conductive container.
However, Edwards discloses that wherein the aperture plate includes the conductive container (column 3 lines 37-50 teaches a metallic beam blanking aperture plate 16 coupling to a current meter 24 for measuring a quantity related to ion beam current. The metallic beam blanking aperture plate 16 coupling to a current meter corresponds to the conductive container under broadest reasonable interpretation as electrical components capable of capturing charged particles and measuring current as disclosed in [0036] of the instant application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Graupera in view of Edwards to include that wherein the aperture plate includes the conductive container. Such modification would allow for measuring a quantity related to ion beam current within ion beam column (Edwards column 3 lines 37-50).
13. Regarding claim 9:
Graupera discloses a charged particle system (claim 1 teaches a charged particle beam system) comprising:
a plasma source (claim 1 teaches plasma ion source); and
an ion beam optics chamber (column 8 lines 17-26 teaches an ion column 302, corresponding to the ion beam optics chamber) including an
electromagnetic element configured to generate a first magnetic field to separate a plurality of ion species (the electromagnetic element is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to one or more magnet. Column 8 lines 17-38 teaches an upper ExB filter 306U that includes a magnetic field source, which is equivalent to one or more magnets disclosed in the instant application because the upper ExB filter 306U that includes a magnetic field source performs the same function in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same result. The magnetic field source produces a magnetic field 322U. Column 9 lines 1-10 teaches that the desired ions are deflected and some of the undesirable ions are undeflected) of an ion beam (claim 1 teaches plasma ion source and one or more gas sources for providing multiple gases to the plasma ion source to produce multiple ion species and focusing optics to produce a focused beam of the selected ion species), wherein: the ion beam optics chamber defines a beam inlet and a beam outlet; in a first state, the plasma source is configured to emit the ion beam through the beam inlet and the beam outlet (column 8 lines 17-26, fig. 3 teaches ions 312 are drawn from a plasma chamber 313 by extraction. The extraction electrode 315 through which the ions 312 enters the ion column 302 corresponds to the beam inlet, and aperture 342 through which the ions 312 leaves the ion column 302 corresponds to the beam outlet).
Graupera fails to disclose a conductive container configured to measure a first current of a first ion species of the plurality of ion species; and in a second state: the plasma source is configured to emit the ion beam through the beam inlet; and at least a portion of the first ion species deviates away from the beam outlet toward the conductive container.
Edwards dose not specifically disclose the plurality of ion species. However, Edwards teaches a conductive container configured to measure a first current of a first ion species (column 3 lines 37-50, fig. 3 teaches a metallic beam blanking aperture plate 16 coupling to a current meter 24 for measuring a quantity related to ion beam current). Edwards does not specifically disclose the plasma source. However, Edwards teaches that in a second state: the ion source is configured to emit the ion beam (column 3 lines 37-50teaches elements for generating an ion beam 12) through the beam inlet (as shown in fig. 3, the upstream path where the beam enters the ion column 40 corresponds to the beam inlet); and at least a portion of the first ion species deviates away from the beam outlet toward the conductive container (columns 4 lines 14-29 fig. 3 teach that the deflected ion beam 22 strikes the metallic surface of the aperture plate 16 coupling to a current meter 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Graupera in view of Edwards to include a conductive container configured to measure a first current of a first ion species of the plurality of ion species; and in a second state: the plasma source is configured to emit the ion beam through the beam inlet; and at least a portion of the first ion species deviates away from the beam outlet toward the conductive container. The combination would allow the metallic beam blanking aperture plate 16 coupling to a current meter 24 in Edwards to catch and measure the current of the first ion species isolated from the plurality of ion species generated by the plasma source taught in Graupera. Such modification would allow for measuring a quantity related to ion beam current within ion beam column (as taught in Edwards column 3 lines 37-50).
Graupera in view of Edwards does not specifically note measuring a first current corresponding to a first ion species of the plurality of ion species in isolation from other ion species of the plurality of ion species.
Bazargan teaches measuring a first current corresponding to a first ion species of the plurality of ion species in isolation from other ion species of the plurality of ion species (col 16 lines 11-22 teaches that the detector 132 receives the mass-filtered ions 145 and produces an electronic signal, and that the detector 132 counts the total signal for each mass charge, the magnitude of the measured intensity being scaled to determine the concentration of the elements or analyte ions. Because the ions arriving at detector 132 have been mass-filtered, the signal counted for a given, the signal counted for a given mass-to-charge is attributed to that ion species specifically and is thus measured in isolation from other ion species).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Graupera in view of Edwards, further in view of Bazargan to include a conductive container configured to measure a first current corresponding to a first ion species in isolation from other ion species. Bazargan supplies the practice of resolving the measured signal on a per-mass-to-charge basis. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to determine the concentration of a specific elements or analyte ions (Bazargan col 16 lines 11-22).
14. Regarding claim 11:
The modified invention above discloses the charged particle system of claim 9. Graupera in view of Edwards fails to disclose a computer system in communication with the conductive container, wherein the computer system is configured to determine a first mass of a first gas species of the first ion species based on the first current.
However, Bazargan teaches a computer system (column 16 lines 23-33 teaches one or more controllers 100) in communication with the conductive container (column 16 lines 11-22 teaches the detector 132, corresponding to the conductive container, receives the mass-filtered ions 145 and produces an electronic signal. For an ion to be detected, the detector must be conductive to allow the flow of electrons triggered by ion species. Column 16 lines 23-33 teaches that controller 100 is operatively connected to the system to receive the data and monitor the operations. Column 2 lines 30-46 teaches system controller that controls data handling), wherein the computer system is configured to determine a first mass of a first gas species of the first ion species (mass is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as mass flow as disclosed in [0041], [0043] in the instant application. Column 36 claim 5 teaches gas flow optimization and mass calibration. To perform such optimization and calibration, one needs to determine the mass flow) based on the first current (column 16 lines 11-22 teaches the detector 132 counts the total signal for each mass charge. The magnitude of the measured intensity values may be scaled to determine the concentration of the elements or analyte ions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Graupera in view of Edwards, further in view of Bazargan to include a computer system in communication with the conductive container, wherein the computer system is configured to determine a first mass of a first gas species of the first ion species based on the first current. Such modification would allow for automated optimization routine for flow rate of ionic species (Bazargan columns 16 lines 23-67, col 17 lines 7-16).
15. Regarding claim 12:
The modified invention above discloses the charged particle system of claim 9. Graupera further discloses an aperture plate that defines an aperture (column 8 lines 60-67 teaches an aperture plate 340 with aperture 342) configured to receive the first ion species while the aperture plate is configured to block the other ion species of the plurality of ion species (column 9 lines 1-10 teaches the desired ions, corresponding to the first ion species, pass through aperture 342 and some of the undesirable ions strike aperture plate).
16. Regarding claim 13:
The modified invention above discloses the charged particle system of claim 12. Graupera further discloses an electrostatic element configured to generate an electrostatic field to deflect the first ion species toward the aperture of the aperture plate (the electrostatic element is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to electrostatic lenses. Columns 8 lines 39-59 teaches a lower ExB filter 306L that includes electrodes 314L, which is equivalent to electrostatic lenses disclosed in the instant application because the lower ExB filter 306L that includes electrodes 314L performs the same function in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same result. The electrodes 314L produced an electric field indicated by arrow 320L. Column 9 lines 1-10 teaches that the desired ions, corresponding to the first ion species, are deflected to pass through aperture 342 of aperture plate 340).
17. Regarding claim 15:
The modified invention above discloses the charged particle system of claim 12. Graupera fails to disclose that wherein the aperture plate includes the conductive container.
However, Edwards discloses that wherein the aperture plate includes the conductive container (column 3 lines 37-50 teaches a metallic beam blanking aperture plate 16 coupling to a current meter 24 for measuring a quantity related to ion beam current. The metallic beam blanking aperture plate 16 coupling to a current meter corresponds to the conductive container under broadest reasonable interpretation as electrical components capable of capturing charged particles and measuring current as disclosed in [0036] of the instant application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Graupera in view of Edwards to include that wherein the aperture plate includes the conductive container. Such modification would allow for measuring a quantity related to ion beam current within ion beam column (as taught in Edwards column 3 lines 37-50).
18. Regarding claim 16:
Graupera discloses a method of measuring ion species (column 8 lines 60-67 teaches separating ion species based on their mass, which is a method of measuring ion species under broadest reasonable interpretation) comprising:
emitting, from a plasma housed in an ion source generated from a plurality of gas species (claim 1 teaches plasma ion source and one or more gas sources for providing multiple gases to the plasma ion source to produce multiple ion species and focusing optics to produce a focused beam of the selected ion species),
an ion beam through a beam inlet of an ion beam optics chamber (column 8 lines 17-26 teaches an ion column 302, corresponding to the ion beam optics chamber, that receives the extracted ions 312 from the plasma chamber 313. The extraction electrode 315 through which the ions 312 enters the ion column 302 corresponds to the beam inlet);
generating, using an electromagnetic element in the ion beam optics chamber, an electromagnetic field to separate a plurality of ion species of the ion beam (the electromagnetic element is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to one or more magnet. Column 8 lines 17-38, fig. 3 teaches an upper ExB filter 306U within the ion column 302 that includes a magnetic field source, which is equivalent to one or more magnets disclosed in the instant application because the upper ExB filter 306U that includes a magnetic field source performs the same function in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same result. The magnetic field source produces a magnetic field 322U. Column 9 lines 1-10 teaches that the desired ions are deflected and some of the undesirable ions are undeflected);
Graupera fails to disclose measuring, using a conductive container in the ion beam optics chamber, a first current of a first ion species of the plurality of ion species.
Edwards dose not specifically disclose the plurality of ion species. However, Edwards teaches measuring, using a conductive container in the ion beam optics chamber, a first current of a first ion species (column 3 lines 37-50, fig. 3 teaches a metallic beam blanking aperture plate 16 coupling to a current meter 24 for measuring a quantity related to ion beam current).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Graupera in view of Edwards to include measuring, using a conductive container in the ion beam optics chamber, a first current of a first ion species of the plurality of ion species. The combination would allow the metallic beam blanking aperture plate 16 coupling to a current meter 24 in Edwards to catch and measure the current of the first ion species isolated by Graupera from the plurality of ion species. Such modification would allow for measuring a quantity related to ion beam current within ion beam column (Edwards column 3 lines 37-50).
Graupera in view of Edwards does not specifically note measuring a first current corresponding to a first ion species of the plurality of ion species in isolation from other ion species of the plurality of ion species.
Bazargan teaches measuring a first current corresponding to a first ion species of the plurality of ion species in isolation from other ion species of the plurality of ion species (col 16 lines 11-22 teaches that the detector 132 receives the mass-filtered ions 145 and produces an electronic signal, and that the detector 132 counts the total signal for each mass charge, the magnitude of the measured intensity being scaled to determine the concentration of the elements or analyte ions. Because the ions arriving at detector 132 have been mass-filtered, the signal counted for a given, the signal counted for a given mass-to-charge is attributed to that ion species specifically and is thus measured in isolation from other ion species).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Graupera in view of Edwards, further in view of Bazargan to include a conductive container configured to measure a first current corresponding to a first ion species in isolation from other ion species. Bazargan supplies the practice of resolving the measured signal on a per-mass-to-charge basis. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to determine the concentration of a specific elements or analyte ions (Bazargan col 16 lines 11-22).
19. Regarding claim 17:
The modified invention above discloses the method of claim 16. Graupera further discloses that wherein the ion beam is a first ion beam (claim 1 teaches plasma ion source and one or more gas sources for providing multiple gases to the plasma ion source to produce multiple ion species and focusing optics to produce a focused beam of the selected ion species),
Graupera in view of Edwards fails to disclose adjusting a first flow rate of a first gas species of the plurality of gas species corresponding to the first ion species based on the first current; and after adjusting the first flow rate, emitting a second beam from the plasma.
However, Bazargan teaches adjusting a first flow rate of a first gas species (columns 22-23 teaches adjusting the flow to find the optimized value based on the criteria) of the plurality of gas species corresponding to the first ion species based on the first current (column 16 lines 11-22 teaches the detector 132 counts the total signal for each mass charge. The magnitude of the measured intensity values may be scaled to determine the concentration of the elements or analyte ions); and after adjusting the first flow rate, emitting a second beam from the plasma (column 2 lines 30-46 teaches generating plasma. Column 6 lines 37-49 teaches the automatic workflow repeats the flow optimization and mass calibration. The newly adjusted flow corresponds to emitting the second beam from the plasma).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Graupera in view of Edwards, further in view of Bazargan to include adjusting a first flow rate of a first gas species of the plurality of gas species corresponding to the first ion species based on the first current; and after adjusting the first flow rate, emitting a second beam from the plasma. Such modification would allow for optimizing the gas flow for operation based on measured signals of ions (as taught in Bazargan column 16 lines 34-67).
20. Regarding claim 18:
The modified invention above discloses the method of claim 16. Graupera further discloses receiving the first ion species through an aperture defined by an aperture plate (column 9 lines 1-10 teaches the desired ions, corresponding to the first ion species, pass through aperture 342 and some of the undesirable ions strike aperture plate. Column 8 lines 60-67 teaches an aperture plate 340 with aperture 342).
21. Regarding claim 19:
The modified invention above discloses the method of claim 18. Graupera further discloses generating, using an electrostatic element, a first electrostatic field to deflect the first ion species toward the aperture (the electrostatic element is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to electrostatic lenses. Columns 8 lines 39-59 teaches a lower ExB filter 306L that includes electrodes 314L, which is equivalent to electrostatic lenses disclosed in the instant application because the lower ExB filter 306L that includes electrodes 314L performs the same function in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same result. The electrodes 314L produce an electric field indicated by arrow 320L. Column 9 lines 1-10 teaches that the desired ions, corresponding to the first ion species, are deflected to pass through aperture 342 of aperture plate 340).
22. Claims 7, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Graupera in view of Edwards, further in view of Bazargan, further in view of Tieger (US-20090266997).
23. Regarding claim 7:
The modified invention above discloses the charged particle system of claim 5. Graupera in view of Edwards, further in view of Bazargan fails to disclose that wherein the aperture plate is movable to align the aperture with the first ion species.
However, Tieger teaches that wherein the aperture plate is movable to align the aperture with the first ion species (abstract section teaches a drive or actuator coupled to the aperture plate moves the aperture plate between the first and second positions. The movable ion extraction aperture plate is moved with respect to the housing for modifying an ion beam profile. Aligning the aperture with the first ion species is intended use, and the physical structures as taught in Tieger is capable of performing such function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Graupera in view of Edwards, further in view of Bazargan, further in view of Tieger to include that wherein the aperture plate is movable to align the aperture with the first ion species. Such modification would allow for movable aperture to modify an ion beam profile (as taught in Tieger abstract section).
24. Regarding claim 14:
The modified invention above discloses the charged particle system of claim 12. Graupera in view of Edwards, further in view of Bazargan fails to disclose that wherein the aperture plate is movable to align the aperture with the first ion species.
However, Tieger teaches that wherein the aperture plate is movable to align the aperture with the first ion species (abstract section teaches a drive or actuator coupled to the aperture plate moves the aperture plate between the first and second positions. The movable ion extraction aperture plate is moved with respect to the housing for modifying an ion beam profile. Aligning the aperture with the first ion species is intended use, and the physical structures as taught in Tieger is capable of performing such function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Graupera in view of Edwards, further in view of Bazargan, further in view of Tieger to include that wherein the aperture plate is movable to align the aperture with the first ion species. Such modification would allow for movable aperture to modify an ion beam profile (as taught in Tieger abstract section).
25. Claims 3, 10, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Graupera in view of Edwards, further in view of Bazargan, further in view of Kellogg (US 20150102230).
26. Regarding claim 3:
The modified invention above discloses the charged particle system of claim 1. Graupera further discloses a sample chamber (column 3 lines 36-52 teaches a sample chamber) including a sample holder (processing a sample inside a sample chamber inherently requires a sample holder to physically support the sample), wherein: in a first state, the plasma source generates the ion beam (claim 1 teaches plasma ion source and one or more gas sources for providing multiple gases to the plasma ion source to produce multiple ion species and focusing optics to produce a focused beam of the selected ion species) and the ion beam is directed to the sample holder (column 15 lines 4-15 teaches focusing the selected one of the ion species onto a work piece to execute a first process);
in a second state, the electromagnetic element generates the first magnetic field (the first and second states are intended use. As the physical structures of the claimed electromagnetic element and plasma source are disclosed, the physical structures in the reference are capable of performing the functions. The electromagnetic element is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to one or more magnet. Column 8 lines 17-38 teaches an upper ExB filter 306U that includes a magnetic field source, which is equivalent to one or more magnets disclosed in the instant application because the upper ExB filter 306U that includes a magnetic field source performs the same function in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same result. The magnetic field source produces a magnetic field 322U).
Graupera in view of Edwards, further in view of Bazargan fails to disclose that the sample chamber is free of the ion beam; and in the second state, the ion beam optics chamber and the sample chamber are fluidly isolated from each other.
However, Kellogg teaches that the sample chamber is free of the ion beam ([0041] teaches that a column/chamber isolation valve 376 is positioned somewhere between the source 302 and the sample chamber 378. Isolation valve 376 enables the vacuum in the ion column vacuum chamber 377 to be maintained at high levels, even if the vacuum level in the sample chamber 378 is adversely affected by sample outgassing); and in the second state, the ion beam optics chamber and the sample chamber are fluidly isolated from each other ([0041] teaches that a column/chamber isolation valve 376 is positioned somewhere between the source 302 and the sample chamber 378. Isolation valve 376 enables the vacuum in the ion column vacuum chamber 377 to be maintained at high levels, even if the vacuum level in the sample chamber 378 is adversely affected by sample outgassing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Graupera in view of Edwards, further in view of Bazargan, further in view of Kellogg to include that that the sample chamber is free of the ion beam; and in the second state, the ion beam optics chamber and the sample chamber are fluidly isolated from each other. Such modification would enable the vacuum in the ion column vacuum chamber to be maintained at high levels, even if the vacuum level in the sample chamber is adversely affected by sample outgassing (as taught in Kellogg [0041]).
27. Regarding claim 10:
The modified invention above discloses the charged particle system of claim 9. Graupera further discloses a sample chamber (column 3 lines 36-52 teaches a sample chamber) including a sample holder (processing a sample inside a sample chamber inherently requires a sample holder to physically support the sample) wherein: in the first state, the ion beam optics chamber and the sample chamber are in fluid communication with each other (column 8 lines 17-26 teaches an ion column 302, corresponding to the ion beam optics chamber. Column 15 lines 4-15 teaches process a work piece with focused ion beam. To process a work piece, the ion beam needs to enter the sample chamber and strike on the work piece, and thus the ion column is in fluid communication with the ion beam optics chamber);
Graupera in view of Edwards, further in view of Bazargan fails to disclose that in the second state, the ion beam optics chamber and the sample chamber are fluidly isolated from each other.
However, Kellogg teaches that in the second state, the ion beam optics chamber and the sample chamber are fluidly isolated from each other ([0041] teaches that a column/chamber isolation valve 376 is positioned somewhere between the source 302 and the sample chamber 378. Isolation valve 376 enables the vacuum in the ion column vacuum chamber 377 to be maintained at high levels, even if the vacuum level in the sample chamber 378 is adversely affected by sample outgassing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Graupera in view of Edwards, further in view of Bazargan, further in view of Kellogg to include that in the second state, the ion beam optics chamber and the sample chamber are fluidly isolated from each other. Such modification would enable the vacuum in the ion column vacuum chamber 377 to be maintained at high levels, even if the vacuum level in the sample chamber 378 is adversely affected by sample outgassing (as taught in Kellogg [0041]).
28. Regarding claim 20:
The modified invention above discloses the method of claim 16. Graupera fails to disclose that wherein measuring the first current of the first ion species is performed.
However, Edwards discloses that wherein measuring the first current of the first ion species is performed (column 3 lines 37-50, fig. 3 teaches a metallic beam blanking aperture plate 16 coupling to a current meter 24 for measuring a quantity related to ion beam current).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Graupera in view of Edwards to include that wherein measuring the first current of the first ion species is performed. Such modification would allow for measuring a quantity related to ion beam current within ion beam column (as taught in Edwards column 3 lines 37-50).
Graupera in view of Edwards, further in view of Bazargan fails to disclose that wherein measuring the first current of the first ion species is performed while the ion beam optics chamber is fluidly isolated from a sample chamber.
Kellogg does not specifically disclose that wherein measuring the first current of the first ion species is performed while the ion beam optics chamber is fluidly isolated from a sample chamber. However, Kellogg discloses that the ion beam optics chamber is fluidly isolated from a sample chamber ([0041] teaches that a column/chamber isolation valve 376 is positioned somewhere between the source 302 and the sample chamber 378. Isolation valve 376 enables the vacuum in the ion column vacuum chamber 377 to be maintained at high levels, even if the vacuum level in the sample chamber 378 is adversely affected by sample outgassing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Graupera in view of Edwards, further in view of Bazargan, further in view of Kellogg to include that wherein measuring the first current of the first ion species is performed while the ion beam optics chamber is fluidly isolated from a sample chamber. Such modification would enable the vacuum in the ion column vacuum chamber to be maintained at high levels, even if the vacuum level in the sample chamber is adversely affected by sample outgassing (as taught in Kellogg [0041]).
29. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Graupera in view of Edwards, further in view of Bazargan, further in view of Parker (US 4929839).
30. Regarding claim 21:
The modified invention above teaches the charged particle system of claim 1. Graupera does not teach a blanker, wherein the blanker is configured to generate an electric field that diverts the first ion species toward the conductive container.
Edwards teaches a blanker is configured to generate an electric field that diverts the first ion species toward the conductive container (fig. 1, col 3 lines 37-50 teaches blanking deflection plates 14 and 15 having negative and positive potentials for deflecting the beam 12. Such beam is directed towards the beam blanking aperture plate 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Graupera to incorporate the blanker that diverts the first ion species toward the conductive container, as taught by Edwards. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to direct an ion beam to works a conductive container for measuring a quantity related to ion beam current (Edwards col 3 lines 37-50).
Edwards teaches that blanking deflection plates 14 and 15 are above the conductive container (fig. 1) but does not specify the blanker is positioned below the electromagnetic element. Parker teaches that the blanker is mounted below the mass filter (col 3 lines 24-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Graupera in view of Edwards, further in view of Bazargan, further in view of Parker to position the blanker between the electromagnetic element and the conductive container. Edwards teaches blanking deflection plates 14 and 15 are above the conductive container, and Parker teaches the blanker is mounted below the mass filter. The combination of Edwards and Parker regarding the spatial arrangement of the blanker would result in the blanker being positioned between the electromagnetic element and the conductive container. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to blank and unblank the beam to control whether the beam will reach the target or not (Parker col 3 lines 24-35).
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 LARRY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm. 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, 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.
/LARRY LI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights