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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The previous objections to drawings, specification, and claim 9 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections to claims 6 and 9 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claim 4 is withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment. However, the amended claim 4 raises new ground for 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claim 12 is partially overcome in light of applicant’s amendment. In addition, the amended claim 12 raises new ground for 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
Regarding previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections in view of Otsuka: applicant argues Otsuka does not teach the amended claim 1 without any elaboration. As will be explained in more detailed below, Otsuka teaches the amended claim 1, and thus the rejections are sustained.
Regarding previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in view of Shintani: applicant argues Shintani does not teach the newly amended elements in claim 1. This argument is moot in light of Otsuka’s teaching of those elements.
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 4 and 12 are 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 4 recites “compare a signal obtained by performing Fourier transform …or a signal obtained by performing inverse Fourier transform … for each incident position of the primary beam.” The limitation fails to identify what the recited Fourier-transformed/Inverse-Fourier-transformed signal is compared with. Although the claim states that the comparison is performed “for each incident position,” that language identifies the position associated with the comparison and does not provide a second object of comparison.
Claim 12 recites that “the particle extractor determines whether an atomic number of the extracted particle is lighter or heavier than an atomic number of the base material.” It is unclear what is meant by an atomic number being “light” or “heavier” than another atomic number since those terms ordinarily characterize an element, atom, particle, or composition, whereas atomic numbers are numerical values that may be lower or higher. The specification itself distinguishes “a particle with a lower atomic number (lighter)” from “a particle with a higher atomic number (heavier)” (See Spec. para. [0233]).
In addition, claim 12 recites “…an atomic number of the base material,” which is lack of antecedent basis.
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.
(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, 5, 7-8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0204245 A1 [hereinafter Otsuka].
Regarding Claim 1:
Otsuka teaches an analysis device (Abstract: “A charged particle beam device”) comprising:
an irradiation unit (Fig. 1- electron source 2) configured to irradiate a sample (Fig. 1 – specimen S) with a primary beam;
a detection unit (Fig. 1- electron detector 8) having a plurality of detection regions that detect a secondary beam emitted or reflected from the sample irradiated with the primary beam at a plurality of incident positions (Figs. 1 and 2, paras. [0086-0087, 0116, 0189]: “The electron detector 8 detects electrons scattered and diffracted by the specimen S when the specimen S is irradiated with an electron beam” and “the electron detector 8 is a segmented detector having n-number of detection regions 9.” First-n signals acquired and intensity pattern generated “for each incidence position,” indicating multiple incident positions and each can be resented by coordinates (x, y) and forming a three-dimensional intensity array (x, y, z));
an arithmetic processing unit (Fig. 1- processing unit 30) configured to perform predetermined arithmetic processing on strength distribution of a plurality of detection signals respectively detected by the plurality of detection regions (Fig. 1 and paras. [0098-0099]: “The processing unit 30 includes an intensity pattern information generating unit 32…[which] generates intensity pattern information based on intensities of the first to n-th detection signals output from the n-number of detection regions 9,” and subjecting further processing by one or more modules of the processing unit 30);
wherein the arithmetic processing unit is a Fourier transformer that performs a Fourier transform on the strength distribution of the plurality of detection signals respectively detected by the plurality of detection regions for each of the plurality of incident positions of the primary beam on the sample (a plurality of detection signals are detected by plurality of detection regions, e.g., 9 regions, where each signal is represented as dn =s(x, y, n) based on which an “intensity pattern” is obtained ([0125-0127]), each signal is acquired and the intensity pattern generated for “each incidence position” ([0189-0193]). The “intensity pattern is analyzed by subjecting the analyzed intensity pattern to fast fourier transform ( FFT ),” and the intensity pattern is generated/analyzed while scanning specimen with electron probe ([0252-0253])).
Regarding Claim 5:
Otsuka teaches the analysis device of claim 1. Otsuka further teaches a feature extractor configured to extract a signal of a predetermined wavenumber from a signal obtained by performing Fourier-transform by the Fourier transformer and extract a feature on the sample by processing the signal (paras. [0252-0253]: an acquired analyzed intensity pattern is subject to FFT, that periodicity/symmetry information such as four-fold symmetry is obtained from the Fourier analysis, and that a crystal orientation is specified from that analysis (“extract a feature on the sample”)).
Regarding Claim 7:
Otsuka teaches the analysis device of claim 1. Otsuka further teaches wherein the plurality of detection regions are arranged rotationally symmetrically with respect to an optical axis of the primary beam (Fig. 2 and para. [0088]: “The electron detector 8 is arranged on the optical axis OA. The electron detector 8 is arranged so that the optical axis OA passes through a center of the annular detector plane”).
Regarding Claim 8:
Otsuka teaches the analysis device of claim 1. Otsuka further teaches wherein the detection unit includes a plurality of detection elements, and the plurality of detection elements are arranged in a two-dimensional array (para. [0263]: “the EBSD detector 302 may be used in place of the electron detector 8…a two-dimensional array type detector is normally used as an EBSD detector and a signal is accepted as an image”).
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 is a method claim recites substantially the same subject matter of claim 1. Otsuka teaches the analysis device of claim 1, and thus Otsuka also teaches the analysis method using such a device recited in claim 13.
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.
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka in view of US 12,237,145 B2 [hereinafter Shintani].
Regarding Claim 3:
Otsuka teaches the analysis device of claim 1. However, Otsuka does not teach wherein the Fourier transformer performs filtering processing on a wavenumber-decomposed signal, removes a partial signal, and performs inverse Fourier transform on a remaining signal after the removal. Shintani teaches wherein the Fourier transformer performs filtering processing on a wavenumber-decomposed signal, removes a partial signal, and performs inverse Fourier transform on a remaining signal after the removal (7: 9-24: Fourier transforming a signal strength profile J (k, x), to obtain a Fourier coefficient B (k, f), where the coefficient indexed by f represents the signal in a frequency/wavenumber decomposed form. A modified coefficient B’ (k, f) is then calculated after calibration and a calibrated signal profile J’ (k, x) is obtained by performing inverse Fourier transform on B’ (k, f)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to further process Otsuka’s Fourier-transformed detector signal distribution using Shintani’s known frequency domain filtering and inverse Fourier transformation, to remove unwanted signal components and improving the accuracy of the resulting signal information.
Regarding Claim 4:
Otsuka teaches the analysis device of claim 1. However, Otsuka does not teach a determination unit configured to compare a signal obtained by performing Fourier transform by the Fourier transformer or a signal obtained by performing inverse Fourier transform by performing filtering processing on a signal obtained by performing Fourier transform for each incident position of the primary beam. Shintani teaches a determination unit configured to compare a signal obtained by performing Fourier transform by the Fourier transformer or a signal obtained by performing inverse Fourier transform by performing filtering processing on a signal obtained by performing Fourier transform for each incident position of the primary beam (Figs. 8A-8B and 7:9-26: dividing the image into signal profiles, performing Fourier transform on
J
(
k
,
x
)
to obtain Fourier coefficients, performing inverse Fourier transform to obtain calibrated signal profiles
J
'
(
k
,
x
)
, and showing before calibration and after calibration signal-strength distributions in Figs. 8A-8B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to compare Otsuka’s Fourier-processed detector signal with the corresponding signal information as taught by Shintani, to allow the effect of the Fourier domain processing to be evaluated and the corrected signal information to be distinguished from the uncorrected signal information, thereby facilitating assessment of the specimen signal after frequency domain correction.
Claim 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka in view of US20040042057A1 [hereinafter Thomas].
Regarding Claim 6:
Otsuka teaches the analysis device of claim 1. However, the Otsuka does not teach a vector field arithmetic unit configured to replace a signal obtained by performing Fourier-transform by the Fourier transformer with a vector value. Thomas teaches a vector field arithmetic unit configured to replace a complex number F(k) =ak+ibk of signal obtained by performing Fourier-transform by the Fourier transformer with a vector value (paras. [0044-0047, 0054-0056]: Thomas teaches, in the context of Fourier domain processing, that Fourier-transform signal is represented as a complex quantity may be treated as the two separate elements of a two-dimensional vector. Thus, Thomas supports converting a complex Fourier result a+ib into a vector representation (a,b)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to represent Ostuka’s complex Fourier-transform result F(k) = ak+ibk as the two dimensional vector Vk =(ak, bk), as taught by Thomas, because the vector representation preserves the real and imaginary information of the complex Fourier result in a form suitable for vector-based processing.
Regarding Claim 11:
Otsuka in view of Thomas teaches the analysis device of claim 6. Otsuka further teaches a particle extractor configured to extract a particle included in the sample based on the strength distribution of the detection signals subjected to the predetermined arithmetic processing by the arithmetic processing unit (paras. [0184-0187]: “a size of a crystalline particle can be measured using an intensity pattern stored for each of pixels forming a scanned image…An intensity pattern at a pixel specified by the user is adopted as a reference intensity pattern and, for all pixels forming the scanned image, a Euclidean distance D x, y is obtained… the pixel ( x , y ) may represent a different crystalline particle…a region which includes the pixel ( x , y ) and of which the Euclidean distance D x, y is equal to or shorter than a predetermined value is extracted …an area of the specified crystalline particle is obtained”).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka in view of US 2011/0064296 A1 [hereinafter Dixon].
Regarding Claim 9:
Otsuka teaches the analysis device of claim 1. Otsuka further teaches wherein the arithmetic processing unit performs Fourier transform on strength distribution of a plurality of detection signals the detection regions have detected, as discussed claim 1. However, Otsuka does not teach the processing is performed in a state where the sample is not irradiated with the primary beam. Dixon teaches wherein the arithmetic processing unit performs predetermined arithmetic processing on strength distribution of a detection signal amount for a signal amount in a state where the sample is not irradiated with the primary beam (para. [0173]: “Dark-current noise floor can be measured…by scanning with the microscope slide removed,” as such the system obtains a baseline detector signal in the absence of normal specimen-derived signal and uses it for later processing).
Otsuka teaches an analysis device that acquires plural detector-output signals from a plurality of detection regions and processes those signals as an intensity pattern/strength distribution. Dixon teaches obtaining a baseline detector signal in the absence of normal specimen-derived signal, for example by measuring the “dark-current noise floor” while “scanning with the microscope slide removed,” and further teaches subtracting that detector noise-floor contribution from later image data. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to apply Dixon’s known baseline measurement to Otsuka’s detector-output processing system so that the detector-derived strength distribution could be corrected using a baseline signal and thereby reduce detector dark-current/background influence on the processed detector signals.
Regarding Claim 10:
Otsuka teaches the analysis device of claim 1. However, Otsuka does not teach wherein the arithmetic processing unit has a function of determining whether the strength distribution of the detection signals is not saturated. Dixon teaches wherein the arithmetic processing unit has a function of determining whether the strength distribution of the detection signals is not saturated (paras. [0017, 0021]: “Before scanning a large specimen in fluorescence… set the exposure time…or the combination of laser intensity, detector gain and scan speed…so that the final image will be properly exposed… not contain saturated pixels”).
Otsuka teaches an analysis device that processes plural detector outputs as a signal pattern/strength distribution. Dixon teaches that, before scanning, exposure conditions such as laser intensity, detector gain, and scan speed are set so that the final image is properly exposed and “should not contain saturated pixels,” and further defines “proper exposure” as a condition in which no, or only a small number of, pixels are saturated while the available dynamic range is effectively used. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Dixon’s known saturation-determination approach into Otsuka’s processing system so that Otsuka’s detector-signal strength distribution would be evaluated under non-saturated conditions and the available detector dynamic range would be used without clipping the detector signals.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka in view Thomas, and further in view of US 2019/0064705A1 [hereinafter Yagi].
Regarding Claim 12:
Otsuka in view Thomas teach the analysis device of claim 11. The combined references further teach an image processor configured to perform vector analysis on the strength distribution of the detection signals subjected to the predetermined arithmetic processing by the arithmetic processing unit, as discussed.
However, the combined references do not expressly teach wherein the particle extractor determines whether an atomic number of the extracted particle is lighter or heavier than an atomic number of the base material based on the vector analysis performed by the image processor.
Yagi teaches using an SEM backscattered-electron composition image to distinguish material regions based on atomic number dependent brightness, including distinguishing a toner-particle base material from an organosilicon-polymer region and assigning image pixels to the relative based on their brightness (see paras. [0055-0057, 0062]).
As such, applying Yagi’s BSE atomic number dependent compositional analysis to the crystalline particles identifies in the specimen of Otsuka, so that the particles’ BSE response will be compared with the surrounding/base material, and whether the particle corresponds to relatively lower or higher atomic number material than the base material can be determined, as recited in claim 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to apply Yagi’s atomic-number-dependent BSE compositional analysis to the crystalline particles identifies by Otsuka to further characterize the composition of the identified particles relative to the surrounding base material, as Yagi demonstrates that differences in BSE brightness permit materials having different atomic numbers to be distinguished from a base material.
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 JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights