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 .
Claims status: amended claims: 1 – 6; the rest is unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1 & 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new secondary reference.
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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-2, 4-6, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2022/0120561 A1; pub. Apr. 21, 2022) in view of Fruh et al. (US 2018/0319951 A1; pub. Nov.8, 2018).
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. disclose: An X-ray apparatus for analyzing three-dimensional nanostructures, comprising: an X-ray source for emitting X-ray (para. [0010]), wherein the X-ray has a wavelength greater than or equal to 0.154 nm (para. [0010]); an X-ray reflector configured to reflect the X-ray onto a sample surface of a sample (para. [0010]); and an X-ray detector configured to collect reflected X-ray reflected by the sample surface of the sample (para. [0010]), wherein the reflected X-ray comprises a plurality of scattered X-rays (para. [0010]), the X-ray detector collects a plurality of scattered intensities (para. [0010]).
Liu et al. disclose: a plurality of scattering angles of the plurality of scattered X-ray and analyzes structural information of the sample based on at least one of the plurality of scattered intensities and the plurality of scattering angles.
In a similar field of endeavor Fruh et al. disclose: a plurality of scattering angles of the plurality of scattered X-ray and analyzes structural information of the sample based on at least one of the plurality of scattered intensities and the plurality of scattering angles (para. [0326]) motivated by the benefits for determining the size and shape of nanostructures (Fruh et al. para. [0326]).
In light of the benefits for improving the focus beam on the detector as taught by Fruh et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Liu et al. with the teachings of Fruh et al.
Regarding claim 2, Liu et al. disclose: the X-ray has a wavelength greater than 0.154 nm (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 4, Liu et al. disclose: an incident slit disposed between the X-ray reflector and the sample, wherein the X-ray from the X-ray source passes through the incident slit to the sample surface of the sample after the X-ray from the X-ray source is reflected by the X-ray reflector (fig.1A item 200, para. [0033]).
Regarding claim 5, Liu et al. disclose: the reflected X-ray comprises specularly reflected X-ray, and the X-ray detector collects reflected X-ray intensity of the reflected X-ray and removes intensity of the specularly reflected X-ray from the reflected X-ray intensity (para. [0039]).
Regarding claim 6, Liu et al. and Fruh et al. disclose: A method for analyzing three-dimensional nanostructures, comprising: emitting X-ray by an X-ray source; reflecting the X-ray onto a sample surface of a sample by an X- ray reflector; collecting reflected X-ray reflected by the sample surface of the sample by an X-ray detector, wherein the reflected X-ray comprises a plurality of scattered X-rays; and analyzing structural information of the sample based on at least one of a plurality of scattered intensities and a plurality of scattering angles of the plurality of scattered X-ray (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 1, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Regarding claim 8, Liu et al. disclose: the X-ray has a wavelength greater than or equal to 0.154 nm (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 9, Liu et al. disclose: the plurality of scattered X-ray correspond to the plurality of scattering angles, and the plurality of scattering angles are different from each other (para. [0040], [0042]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2022/0120561 A1; pub. Apr. 21, 2022) in view of Fruh et al. (US 2018/0319951 A1; pub. Nov.8, 2018) and further in view of Dikopoltsev et al. (US 11,181,490 B2; pub. Nov. 23, 2021).
Regarding claim 3, the combined references are silent about: a multi-axis moving device configured to control the X-ray detector to move along at least one of an X direction, a Y direction and a Z direction.
In a similar field of endeavor Dikopoltsev et al. disclose: a multi-axis moving device configured to control the X-ray detector to move along at least one of an X direction, a Y direction and a Z direction (col.26 L42-51) motivated by the benefits for improving the focus beam on the detector (Dikopoltsev et al. col.26 L46-47).
In light of the benefits for improving the focus beam on the detector as taught by Dikopoltsev et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Liu et al. and Fruh et al. with the teachings of Dikopoltsev et al.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2022/0120561 A1; pub. Apr. 21, 2022) in view of Fruh et al. (US 2018/0319951 A1; pub. Nov.8, 2018) and further in view of Tanigaki et al. (US 2025/0204164 A1; pub. Jun. 19, 2025).
Regarding claim 7, the combined references are silent about: the reflected X-ray comprises specularly reflected X-ray, and method further comprises: collecting reflected X-ray intensity of the reflected X-ray by the X-ray detector; collecting intensity of the specularly reflected X-ray by the X-ray detector; and removing the intensity of the specularly reflected X-ray from the reflected X-ray intensity of the reflected X-ray.
In a similar field of endeavor Tanigaki et al. disclose: the reflected X-ray comprises specularly reflected X-ray, and method further comprises: collecting reflected X-ray intensity of the reflected X-ray by the X-ray detector; collecting intensity of the specularly reflected X-ray by the X-ray detector; and removing the intensity of the specularly reflected X-ray from the reflected X-ray intensity of the reflected X-ray (para. [0284] teaches specular reflection contributes to glariness therefore should be reduced) motivated by the benefits for improved image quality (Tanigaki et al. para. [0284]).
In light of the benefits for improved image quality as taught by Tanigaki et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Liu et al. and Fruh et al. with the teachings of Tanigaki et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights