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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-15 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 1 recites “wherein at least one entrance slit, extending in a slit direction” is indefinite because it is not clear what constitutes a ‘slit direction.’ The term is not defined by the claim and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the electrostatic lens system comprising at least a first lens element at a first end arranged to face the sample” is indefinite because it is unclear if the ‘a first end’ is referring to the first end of the electrostatic lens system or the first end of the imaging energy analyser, previously recited.
Claim 1 recites “a last lens element at a second end arranged to face the entrance of the imaging energy analyser” is indefinite because it is unclear if the ‘a second end’ is referring to the second end of the electrostatic lens system or the second end of the imaging energy analyser, previously recited.
Claim 1 recites “wherein at least one voltage setting is defined by at least three parameters” lack sufficient antecedent basis. Consequently, it is unclear if the “at least one voltage setting” is one of the ‘individual output voltage settings” or some other voltage settings.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the set of output voltage settings specifies the voltages to be applied on the electronic lens system…” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Consequently, it is unclear if the “set of output voltage settings” is the same or different to the “set of individual output voltage settings” or some other set of output voltage settings.
Claims 2-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “at least two non-mutually mirror symmetric elements have individual voltage settings” is indefinite because it is not clear what constitutes “two non-mutually symmetric elements”.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the output voltage settings are configured in that…” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Consequently it is unclear if the “output voltage settings” is the same or different to the “set of individual output voltage settings” or some other output voltage settings.
Claim 3 recites “at least one selected trajectory associated with the selected condition” is indefinite because it is unclear what the selected trajectory is of. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the “at least one selected trajectory associated with the selected condition.”
Claim 3 recites “wherein each setting is defined in a non-separable manner by at least said three parameters for controlling at least one selected trajectory associated with the selected condition” is indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by the settings being defined in a non-separable manner by the three parameters.
Claim 3 recites “the selected condition” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites “wherein a sequence of deflection settings is realized without mechanical movement of any of its components, including the lens elements of the electrostatic lens system, the at least one deflector arrangement, and the imaging energy analyser” is indefinite because it is unclear if the sequence of deflection settings is realized without mechanical movement of any of the spectrometer’s components (all components of the spectrometer have no mechanical motion), or if the components having no mechanical motion are limited to those listed.
Claim 6 recites “output voltage settings”, “one selected trajectory”, and “the selected parameters”. These limitations lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the output voltage settings”, “selected trajectory”, and “selected parameters”. These limitations lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “the output voltage settings” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites “a fourth parameter, which defines a nominal spatial position in a second dimension” and claim 10 recites “the fourth parameter defines the nominal spatial position in the direction along the optical axis of the electrostatic lens system” is indefinite because it is unclear what the nominal spatial position is of.
Claim 10 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 9.
Claim 11 recites “the output voltage settings” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites “the previously mentioned parameters of the lens table”, “the detector window”, “said parameter” and “the selected particle trajectory” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites “the energy direction” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by “the energy direction.” The term “energy direction” is not defined by the claim or the specification, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 12 recites “wherein each position on the two-dimensional multichannel particle detector…is also dependent on an additional parameter defining a shift from the detector centre in the energy direction…” is indefinite because it is unclear how a stationary position on an object (detector) can depend on such a parameter. It appears that the position on the detector claimed may refer to the position upon with the charged particle beam lands on the detector. Please clarify.
Claim 13 recites “wherein each position on the two-dimensional multichannel particle detector…is also dependent on an additional parameter defining an angular shift from the trajectory associated with the detector centre…” is indefinite because it is unclear how a stationary position on an object (detector) can depend on such a parameter. It appears that the position on the detector claimed may refer to the position upon with the charged particle beam lands on the detector. Please clarify.
Claim 13 recites “the previously mentioned parameters of the lens table”, “the trajectory associated with the detector centre”, “the detector window”, “that parameter”, and “the selected particle trajectory” lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites “the coordinate direction” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by “the coordinate direction.” The term “coordinate direction” is not defined by the claim or the specification, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention and what direction is being referred to.
Claim 13 recites “angular level” is indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by an angular level within the detector window. The term “angular level” is not defined by the claim or the specification, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 14 recites “wherein at least one entrance slit, extending in a slit direction” is indefinite because it is not clear what constitutes a ‘slit direction.’ The term is not defined by the claim and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 14 recites “the electrostatic lens system comprising at least a first lens element at a first end arranged to face the sample” is indefinite because it is unclear if the ‘a first end’ is referring to the first end of the electrostatic lens system or the first end of the imaging energy analyser, previously recited.
Claim 14 recites “a last lens element at a second end arranged to face the entrance of the imaging energy analyser” is indefinite because it is unclear if the ‘a second end’ is referring to the first end of the electrostatic lens system or the second end of the imaging energy analyser, previously recited.
Claim 14 recites “wherein at least one voltage setting is defined by at least three parameters” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Consequently, it is unclear if the “at least one voltage setting” is one of the ‘individual output voltage settings” or some other voltage settings.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the set of output voltage settings specifies the voltages to be applied on the electronic lens system…” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Consequently it is unclear if the “set of output voltage settings” is the same or different to the “set of individual output voltage settings” or some other set of output voltage settings.
Claim 15 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 14.
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.
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 1-6, 8-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wannberg (US 20180269054 A1) in view of Baltzer (US 9997346 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Wannberg teaches a charged particle spectrometer (photo-electron spectrometer 1, [0003]) operable in angular mode (angular mode, [0009]), comprising:
an imaging energy analyser (measurement region 3 along with two-dimensional detector arrangement 9 and spin detector 25, Fig. 4, [0008]-[0010]) having a first end with an entrance for charged particles (entrance slit 8, Figs. 4 and 6, [0003]), and a second end with an at least two-dimensional multichannel particle detector (detector arrangement 9, [0003], Fig. 4), wherein at least one entrance slit, extending in a slit direction, is arranged at the entrance for selecting the charged particles to enter the imaging energy analyser (entrance slit 8, Fig. 6, [0008]),
an electrostatic lens system (electrostatic lens system 13, [0003], Figs. 4 and 6, extending along an optical axis (optical axis 15, Fig. 4, [0003]), arranged to transport charged particles emitted from a sample to the entrance of the imaging energy analyser ([0003], Fig. 4), the electrostatic lens system comprising at least a first lens element at a first end arranged to face the sample (L1 is at first end facing sample 11, [0003], [0009], Fig. 6), a last lens element at a second end arranged to face the entrance of the imaging energy analyser (L3 is at a second end facing entrance 8 of measurement region 3, Fig. 6, [0003]), at least one intermediate lens element arranged in-between the first lens element and the last lens element (L2, Fig. 6, [0003]), and at least a first deflector operable to cause deflection of the charged particles in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis of the electrostatic lens system before entry into the imaging energy analyser (first deflector package 29, [0062]-[0063], Figs. 4-6), and
a control unit configured to control the voltages to be applied to the imaging energy analyser and the electrostatic lens system (control unit 35, [0040]-[0044]), characterised in that
wherein at least one voltage setting is defined by at least three parameters (various particle-related parameters, [0032], [0040]-[0044]), a first parameter defining a nominal spatial position of an emission spot on the sample in one dimension relative to the optical axis (the starting position of the charged particles, [0032], [0069], [0040]-[0044]), a second parameter defining an acceleration potential of the electrostatic lens system (energy adjustment (acceleration or retardation), where the acceleration or retardation is controlled directly by the potential difference between the sample 11 and the hemisphere entrance 8, while the other lens voltage are used to control the electron distribution, [0009], [0040]-[0044]), and a third parameter defining the direction of emission of the charged particles from the sample (the start direction, [0046], [0040]-[0044]), wherein the set of output voltage settings specifies the voltages to be applied on the electrostatic lens system for modulating the deflection of charged particles from the nominal spatial position defined by the first parameter, with an acceleration potential defined by the second parameter and in the emission angle defined by the third parameter, so as to control a selected particle beam trajectory of charged particles to enter into the entrance slit of the imaging energy analyser with a minimised divergence in the direction across the slit at the slit plane (control unit 35 configured to control the lens voltages and deflectors, [0065], [0040]-[0044]).
Wannberg does not teach the control unit is provided with a lens table comprising a set of individual output voltage settings to be applied on each lens element and each deflector of the electrostatic lens system.
Baltzer teaches the control unit is provided with a lens table comprising a set of individual output voltage settings to be applied on each lens element and each deflector of the electrostatic lens system (tables DTab(8) and MTab in memory of control unit CU, Col 6, lines 6-36).
Baltzer modifies Wannberg by suggesting that the control unit has data tables comprising voltage setting to be applied to the lenses and deflectors. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider utilizing a lens table provided to the control unit to inform the control of the voltages applied to the lenses and deflectors of the system of Wannberg, based on well-known parameters including the nominal spatial position of the emission spot, the acceleration potential, and the emission angle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Baltzer because providing data from tables to the control unit allows for setting of parameters to control voltage settings (Baltzer, Col. 6, lines 6-36, 15-16), and solves the problem of how the voltage settings are retrieved and implemented by the control unit.
Regarding claim 2, Wannberg teaches wherein the electrostatic lens system further comprises a second deflector operable to cause deflection of the charged particles in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis of the electrostatic lens system at least a second time before entry into the imaging energy analyser (second deflector package 29’, [0062]-[0063], Fig. 4, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Wannberg teaches wherein the output voltage settings are configured in that at least two non-mutually mirror symmetric elements have individual voltage settings (33A/33C, 33B/33D, [0065]), wherein each setting is defined in a non-separable manner by at least said three parameters for controlling at least one selected trajectory associated with the selected condition ([0040]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 4, Wannberg teaches wherein a sequence of deflection settings is realised without mechanical movement of any of its components, including the lens elements of the electrostatic lens system, the at least one deflector arrangement and the imaging energy analyser (deflection using solely electrostatic means [0033], [0027], [0003], [0032]).
Regarding claim 5, Wannberg teaches wherein all deflections of charged particles are performed using electrostatic means ([0003], [0027], [0033], [0032]).
Regarding claim 6, Wannberg teaches wherein the output voltage settings, for controlling at least one selected trajectory associated with the selected parameters, are defined by a set of continuous functions of the selected parameters (pre-calculated functions, [0041], [0044]).
Regarding claim 8, Wannberg teaches wherein the first parameter defines the nominal spatial position in the direction transverse to the slit direction ([0032]).
Regarding claim 9, Wannberg teaches wherein the output voltage settings are defined also by a fourth parameter, which defines a nominal spatial position in a second dimension ([0032]).
Regarding claim 10, Wannberg teaches wherein the fourth parameter defines the nominal spatial position in the direction along the optical axis of the electrostatic lens system ([0032].
Regarding claim 11, Wannberg teaches wherein the output voltage settings are defined by at least five parameters of which three parameters define the nominal spatial position of an emission spot on the sample in three dimensions relative to the optical axis and the first lens element ([0032], [0040]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to the subject matter of claim 14, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a computer program for controlling such a charged particle spectrometer, with a control unit comprising a processor (see Baltzer, column 6, lines 6-14), and to modify Wannberg with such a program and control unit because a computer program and processor allows for the benefit of automatic control of the system including retrieving data and setting voltage values of lenses and deflectors.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 applies mutatis mutandis to the subject matter of claim 15, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have instructions, which, when executed on the processor causes the spectrometer to function (see Baltzer, column 6, lines 6-14) in accordance with claim 14 because instructions executed on a processor allows for the benefit of automatic control of the system including retrieving data and setting voltage values of lenses and deflectors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 12-13 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 LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights