DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 09/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/02/2026.
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 1-10 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 the limitation "gas" in pg. 26, line 18 and pg. 27, line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear if the gas on pg. 26, line 18 is the same or different to the “gas” on pg. 27, line 3.
Claim 1 recites “in a state where the rod-shaped electrode is retracted from the ion source…” and “in a state where the rod-shaped electrode is inserted into the ion source…”. These limitations are vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the functions of retracting and inserting the rod-shaped electrode from the ion source. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the rod-shaped electrode in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “when a short circuit between the first internal electrode and the second internal electrode is detected”. This limitation is indefinite because it is not clear what structure is causing the detection. The claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function of detecting.” T
Claim 2 recites the limitation “when a short circuit between the first internal electrode and the second internal electrode is detected” is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function of detecting. It is not clear from the claim language if the recited function of detecting the short circuit is performed by the control unit, or if this action requires some other structure that is not claimed. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Claims 3-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the gas" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear if “the gas” is the same or different to the “gas” of claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “the control unit continues to supply the gas to the ion source”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear how the control unit “continues” to supply the gas to the ion source, when there was no previous limitation claiming that the control unit supplies the gas to the ion source. Consequently, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 4-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 3.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “when removal of a short-circuited portion between the first internal electrode and the second internal electode is detected” is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function of detecting. It is not clear from the claim language if the recited function of detecting the removal of the short circuit is performed by the control unit, or if this action requires some other structure that is not claimed. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Claims 6-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 4.
Claim 7 recites “the first drive source is shared with the shutter drive source.” This limitation is indefinite because it unclear how two drive sources can be shared. It is not clear what is meant by “the first drive source is shared with the shutter drive source,” and consequently indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “the control unit stores state information on the sample stage…”. The limitation is unclear because it is not clear if the limitation means that the control unit stores the state information physically on the sample stage, or if the control unit stores state information about the the sample stage. Consider amending the preposition for clarity and definiteness.
Claim 10 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 9.
Claim 10 recites “the state information includes a position coordinate and posture information on the sample stage.” The limitation is unclear because it is not clear if the limitation means that the state information is physically on the sample stage, or if the state information is about or regarding or of the sample stage. Consider amending the preposition for clarity and definiteness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Similar prior art includes those references included in the IDS filed 03/28/2024 and Tanaka, et. al. (US 6515426 B1).
The claimed invention would be allowable over the prior art for its recitation requiring “wherein in a state where the rod-shaped electrode is retracted from the ion source, by the power supply unit applying a first discharge voltage between the first internal electrode and the second internal electrode and an acceleration voltage between the first internal electrode and the acceleration electrode, the ion source accelerates, by the acceleration voltage, an ion generated by a collision between gas and an electron generated by discharge between the first internal electrode and the second internal electrode, and emits the ion as an unfocused ion beam directed toward the sample, and in a state where the rod-shaped electrode is inserted into the ion source, by the power supply unit applying a second discharge voltage between the rod-shaped electrode and the first internal electrode and the second internal electrode, the ion source generates an ion therein by a collision between gas and an electron generated by discharge between the rod-shaped electrode and the first internal electrode or the second internal electrode.”
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 GOURLIE
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
