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 04/17/2016 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or liking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “energy sources” in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “wherein the loop of solid material and a first loop of solid material” which should be “wherein the loop of solid material is a first loop of solid material”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites that the shielding material “comprises second one or more wires,” wherein the second wires are “poloidally winded around the loop of solid material externally wrapping the first one or more wires and are coupled to ground”. However, the specification only states that “the toroidal coil may be encapsulated inside an electrically conducting material such as another wiring,” and that the encapsulating conducting material acts as a shield to suppress stray fields” (see Spec. para. [0097]). This disclosure may support a general conducing shield or another wiring, but it does not describe claimed second wires as being poloidally wound around the loop, externally wrapping the first wires, or coupled to ground. Accordingly, the disclosure does not provide adequate written description support for the full scope of claim 8.
Claim 9 recites a first loop/lens having a convex focal point and a second loop/lens also having a convex focal point, thereby condensing the charged particle exiting the second bore. However, the specification describes the stacked-lenses condensing embodiment of Fig. 11 as “two magnetic vector potential-based lenses of opposing type focal points for condensing the passing charged beam,” where “Convex magnetic vector potential-based lens 1110 is followed by concave magnetic vector potential-based lens 1120” (see Fig. 11 and Spec. para. [0106]). Therefore, the specification supports a convex/concave lens combination for condensing the beam, not the claimed convex/convex combination. Accordingly, claim 9 lacks adequate written description support.
Claim 10 recites an electromagnetic lens placed above the first loop, where the electromagnetic lens comprises a second loop of solid material enclosing a second bore, and further recites that the first loop corrects spherical aberration of the electrostatic lens. The specification describes Fig. 10 as an embodiment in which a magnetic field-based lens 1010 produces positive spherical aberration, and magnetic vector potential-based lens 1020 is placed after lens 1010 to correct that aberration (see Fig. 10 and Spec. para. [0105]). The specification does not describe lens 1010 as an electromagnetic lens comprising a second bore as claimed. The specification also does not describe the same lens as both an electromagnetic lens and an electrostatic lens. Accordingly, the specification does not provide adequate written description support for the full scope of claim 10.
Claims 2-3 and 9-10 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.
Claims 2-3 each recites the limitation “the lensing.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “the one or more charged particles crossing through the second bore of the loop.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites both a first loop and a second loop, and it is unclear whether “the loop” refers to the first loop or the second loop.
Claim 10 recites “an electromagnetic lens placed above the first loop… thereby correcting the spherical aberration of the electrostatic lens.” It is unclear whether the lens placed above the first loop is an electromagnetic lens or an electrostatic lens. Because the claim inconsistently identifies the same lens using different lens type, the scope of claim 10 is unclear.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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, 3-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20210249218A1 [hereinafter Nakano].
Regarding Claim 1:
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g). However, a prior art structure which is structurally identical to a claimed structure inherently anticipates a functional limitation of the claimed structure. 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. In the case at hand, Nakano’s current-carrying wires wrapping magnetic core structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed loop wrapped by wires structure because it is structurally identical to the claimed loop wrapped by wires structure. Accordingly, Nakano anticipates the claimed limitations of generating a current through the wire, generating a magnetic field inside the loop, generating magnetic vector potential within the bore, and focusing charged particle exiting the bore.
PNG
media_image1.png
486
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
507
475
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nakano teaches a charged particle optical apparatus (Fig. 14- “electron beam device”) comprising:
a loop of solid material that encloses a bore (see annotated Figs. 1A-1B above and para. [0031]: the multipole 803/806 in Fig. 14 is illustrated in Figs. 1A-1C, which includes a “magnetic core 150 is made of a magnetic material such as pure iron or permalloy, has a cylindrical shape,” and encloses a center bore. The optical axis 100 of the charged particle beam coincides with central axis 105a of the magnetic core);
one or more wires poloidally wrapped around the loop (see annotated Figs. 1A-1B above and para. [0031]: “Main wire portions of the current wires 101 to 112 are respectively disposed in the grooves 151 to 162 provided in the magnetic core 150”);
the one or more wires connected to one or more energy sources; at least one energy source of the one or more energy sources generating a current through at least one wire of the one or more wires and thereby (para. [0033]: “The current wire 101 has a rectangular circuit shape, and a current is supplied from a power supply (not shown)”);
generating a magnetic field inside the loop along a toroidal direction of the loop (para. [0034]: “A multipole field is formed by a magnetic field from the main wire portion.” Because the current wire wraps around the magnetic core, the structure generates magnetic field in/through the magnetic core); and
generating magnetic vector potential within the bore (generating magnetic vector potential within the bore is an inherent electromagnetic property of the current-carrying lens structure);
one or more charged particles crossing through the bore of the loop (Fig. 14 and para. [0048]: “a primary electron beam is emitted from an electron gun 801…and passes through a multipole lens 803”);
wherein the one or more charged particles that exit the bore are focused having a focal point of the charged particle optical apparatus (para. [0048]: “a primary electron beam…passes through a multipole lens 803…. After that, the primary electron beams are converged by a condenser lens 807 and an objective lens 808, and irradiated onto a sample 809”).
Regarding Claim 3:
Nakano teaches the charged particle optical apparatus of claim 1. Nakano further teaches wherein the lensing is convex (para. [0048]: since the charge-particle optics focus the charged particle beams, it has convex effect).
Regarding Claim 4:
Nakano teaches the charged particle optical apparatus of claim 1. Nakano further teaches wherein the loop of solid material has a geometry of a toroid (para. [0031]: magnetic core 150 has a cylindrical shape with a center bore).
Regarding Claim 5:
Nakano teaches the charged particle optical apparatus of claim 1. Nakano further teaches wherein a cross-section of the loop of solid material has a geometry of a polygon (see annotated Fig. 1A below).
PNG
media_image3.png
486
613
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6:
Nakano teaches the charged particle optical apparatus of claim 1. Nakano further teaches wherein the solid material comprises ferromagnetic materials (para. [0031]: “magnetic core 150 is made of a magnetic material such as pure iron or permalloy”).
Regarding Claim 9:
Nakano teaches the charged particle optical apparatus of claim 1. Nakano further teaches wherein the loop of solid material and a first loop of solid material, the bore is a first bore, the one or more wires is first one or more wires, the current is a first current, magnetic vector potential is first magnetic vector potential, the poloidal direction is the first poloidal direction, the focal point is a first focal point, and the first focal point is a convex focal point (as discussed in claim 1, the multipole lens 803 shown in Fig. 14 has a current-wire wrapping magnetic core structure and is capable of performing claimed functions);
PNG
media_image4.png
863
779
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the apparatus further comprising: a second loop of solid material that encloses a second bore; second one or more wires poloidally wrapped around the second loop: the second one or more wires having a second current through at least one wire of the second one or more wires and thereby: generating second magnetic vector potential within the second bore; the one or more charged particles crossing through the second bore of the loop; wherein the one or more charged particles that exit the second bore are focused having a convex focal point of the charged particle optical apparatus, thereby condensing the one or more charged particles exiting the second bore (See annotated Fig. 14 above and Figs. 1A-1B, paras. [0031, 0034, and 0048]: as shown in Fig. 14, the electron beam device also includes a second multipole lens 806 which is identical to the first multiple lens 803, arranged along the charged particle beam path. Therefore, Nakano teaches the claimed first loop and second loop arrangement, with charged particles passing through the second bore and being focused/condensed by the charged particle optical apparatus).
Regarding Claim 10:
Nakano teaches the charged particle optical apparatus of claim 1. Nakano further teaches wherein the loop of solid material is a first loop of solid material, the bore is a first bore, the one or more wires is first one or more wires, the current is a first current, magnetic vector potential is first magnetic vector potential, the focal point is a first focal point, and the first focal point is a convex focal point (as discussed in claim 1, the multipole lens 803 has a current-wire wrapping magnetic core structure and is capable of performing claimed functions);
the apparatus further comprising of an electromagnetic lens placed above the first loop, the electromagnetic lens comprising of a second loop of solid material that encloses a second bore (As shown in annotated Fig. 14 below, the electron beam device comprises multiple condenser lenses 804 and 805 placed above the multipole 806, each condense lens comprises a coil part and a magnetic body (“electromagnetic lens”), the yoke-like solid magnetic body is annular shape whose core surrounding the beam path (“second loop of solid material that encloses a second bore”);
PNG
media_image5.png
863
832
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the one or more charged particles crossing the electromagnetic lens through the second bore and thereby generating a second focal point having a spherical aberration; the one or more charged particles crossing the first bore and condensing on the first focal point that is a convex focal point thereby correcting the spherical aberration of the electrostatic lens (para. [0048]: “The primary electron beams passed through the multipole lens 803 are transferred to a multipole lens 806 by a condenser lens 804 and a condenser lens 805… Each of the multipole lens 803 and the multipole lens 806 is configured with a winding type multipole lens described according to the present embodiment, and a hexapole field is excited in order to perform a spherical aberration correction).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano in view of US 5393983A [hereinafter Hosoki].
Regarding Claim 2:
Nakano teaches the charged particle optical apparatus of claim 1. However, Nakano does not specially note that wherein the lensing is concave. Hosoki teaches wherein the lensing is concave (Abstract: “A magnetic electron lens for use in charged particle beam-applied apparatuses…the lens having concave lens characteristics in a geometric-optical sense… comprises a first and a second magnetic field generating coil arranged in the propagating direction of the charged particle beam”).
Nakano teaches a winding type aberration corrector that generates magnetic fields. Hosoki teaches a magnetic concave electron lens for use in charged particle beam-applied apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure the charged particle lensing effect of Nakano to provide concave lensing, as taught by Hosoki, because concave and convex charged-particle lensing were known selectable lensing modes used to control beam convergence/divergence in charged particle optical system.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano in view of US 20230369916 A1 [hereinafter Kim].
Regarding Claim 7:
Nakano teaches the charged particle optical apparatus of claim 1. However, Nakano does not specially note that the apparatus further comprising of shielding material that shields the magnetic field within the loop of solid material from escaping outside. Kim teaches the apparatus further comprising of shielding material that shields the magnetic field within the loop of solid material from escaping outside (Fig. 12B and para. [0219]: “…most of the unnecessary magnetic field leaking to an outside of the wireless power transmission apparatus may be shielded by the shielding coil 1150 that surrounds the plurality of transmission coils 1100”).
Nakano teaches a winding type aberration corrector that generates magnetic fields. Kim teaches placing shielding coil surrounding transmission coils to shield unnecessary magnetic field leaking to the outside of the apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Nakano’s current-wires structure to include Kim’s shielding coil surrounding the current wires to shield the magnetic field within the loop from escaping while maintaining operating efficiency, as combining known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano in view of Kim, further in view of CN104684371A [hereinafter Ji].
Regarding Claim 7:
Nakano in view of Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 7. The combined references further teach wherein the one or more wires are first one or more wires, and the shielding material comprises second one or more wires, the second one or more wires poloidally winded around the loop of solid material externally wrapping the first one or more wires. Because Kim teaches a shielding coil 1150 includes coils and wrapped around first or more coils 1100 (see Fig. 12B and paras. [0218-0219] of Kim), in the modified structure, wrapping the shielding coil from Kim around the current coils taught in Nakano would allow the shielding coil also poloidally winded around the loop.
However, the combined references do not specially note the second one or more wires are coupled to ground. Ji teaches the second one or more wires are coupled to ground (claim 1: “magnetic field shield module (2) … is connected with the ground” through grounded shielding-control circuitry, and “the magnetic field shielding device module (2) is a shielding coil made of N-turn coils”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure the shielding coil added from Kim with grounded shielding-control circuitry, as taught by Ji, to adjust the shielding coil impedance and induced magnetic field to offset the source magnetic field, thereby providing dynamical shielding while reducing power loss and manufacturing cost.
Conclusion
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
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights