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 .
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 2-5 & 12-17 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.
In each of the dependent claims 2-5 & 12-17 there exists an “or” conjunction and subsequent limitation that, because of the “or” conjunction lacks antecedent basis for anything in the previous clause.
In claim 2, the limitation requiring the “metrology device” “configured to” “induce a magnetic field and to determine the critical dimension for the distance between the subsequent conductive features as the distance in the lateral direction for which the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is less than a threshold value” has two elements that have no antecedent basis because the previous clause requiring the “metrology device” “configured to” “measure a spin relaxation time and to determine a critical dimension for a distance between subsequent conductive features in the sample in a lateral direction as a distance in the lateral direction for which the measured spin relaxation time exceeds a predetermined relaxation time threshold value” is not necessary. The claim can requires only one of the clauses. If the first is chosen, there is no problem. If the second is chosen, there is a lack of antecedent basis for both the critical dimension and the lateral direction.
The same problem exists in claims 3-5 & 12-17. Appropriate clarification is required. Examiner will use the broadest reasonable interpretation to examine the claims as written to advance prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 11, & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Heidmann (U.S. PGPub # 2016/0282427).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Heidmann teaches:
A metrology device for determining metrological characteristics of a sample with conductive features embedded in a layer of a material or a combination of materials having a conductivity different from that of the conductive features, the device comprising:
a probe having a diamond tip with one or more nitrogen-vacancy centers (Fig. 37 Elements 376 & 112. Paragraph 0141.);
a scanning mechanism to displace the probe relative to the sample, along a surface of the sample (Fig. 37 Elements 376 & 112. Paragraph 0141.);
a radiation source to irradiate the diamond tip with a photon radiation to excite the diamond tip to emit fluorescent light (Fig. 37 Elements 302. Paragraph 0141.);
an optical sensor to provide a sense signal indicative of an intensity of the
fluorescent light emitted by the diamond tip (Fig. 37 Elements 330. Paragraph 0141.); and
a signal processor to process the sense signal to compute at least one characteristic of a conductive feature present in the sample (Fig. 1 Element 142. Paragraph 0141.).
PNG
media_image1.png
518
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
594
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Heidmann teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Heidmann teaches a microwave antenna arranged near the diamond tip (Fig. 1 Element 126. See paragraphs 0058 & 0157.); and a microwave signal generator to supply the microwave antenna with a microwave signal (Fig. 1 Element 126. See paragraphs 0058 & 0157.).
PNG
media_image3.png
689
679
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Heidmann teaches:
A method for determining metrological characteristics of a sample with conductive features embedded in a layer of a material or a combination of materials having a conductivity different from that of the conductive features, the method comprising:
carrying the sample (Paragraphs 0134-0135.);
displacing a probe relative to the sample, along a surface of the sample, the probe having a diamond tip with one or more nitrogen-vacancy centers (Paragraphs 0134-0135. Fig. 37 Elements 376 & 112. Paragraph 0141.);
irradiating the diamond tip with photon radiation to excite the diamond tip to emit fluorescent light (Fig. 37 Elements 302. Paragraph 0141.);
optically sensing the diamond tip and providing a sense signal indicative of an intensity of fluorescent light emitted by the diamond tip (Fig. 37 Elements 330. Paragraph 0141.);
processing the sense signal to compute at least one characteristic of a feature present in the sample (Fig. 1 Element 142. Paragraph 0141.);
subjecting, during the irradiating, the sample to a source magnetic field with at least a first frequency and a second frequency, which are mutually different (Paragraphs 0054, 0056, 0060, & elsewhere.); and
analyzing the sensed signals for each of the at least the first frequency and the second frequency to identify a material present in the sample near the diamond tip (Fig. 1 Element 142. Paragraph 0141.).
Regarding claim 18, Heidmann teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Heidmann teaches a microwave antenna arranged near the diamond tip (Fig. 1 Element 126. See paragraphs 0058 & 0157.); and a microwave signal generator to supply the microwave antenna with a microwave signal (Fig. 1 Element 126. See paragraphs 0058 & 0157.).
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 2-7 & 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidmann (U.S. PGPub # 2016/0282427) in view of Stetson et al (U.S. PGPub # 2017/0343695).
Regarding claim 2, Heidmann teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Heidmann does not explicitly teach the metrology device which is configured to: measure a spin relaxation time and to determine a critical dimension of a conductive feature in the sample in a lateral direction as the distance in that lateral direction for which the measured spin relaxation time assumes a value lower than a predetermined relaxation time threshold value; or induce a magnetic field and to determine the critical dimension of the conductive feature as the distance in that lateral direction for which the measured value of a change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field exceeds a threshold value.
Stetson teaches the metrology device which is configured to: induce a magnetic field and to determine the critical dimension of the conductive feature as the distance in that lateral direction for which the measured value of a change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field exceeds a threshold value (See paragraphs 1266-1267.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Stetson to the teachings of Heidmann such that the metrology device would be configured to induce a magnetic field and to determine the critical dimension of the conductive feature as the distance in that lateral direction for which the measured value of a change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field exceeds a threshold value because this would allow one to have “the threshold value [can] be adjusted to adjust the sensitivity of the system.” See paragraph 1267.
Regarding claim 3, Heidmann teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Heidmann does not explicitly teach the metrology device which is configured to: measure a spin relaxation time and to determine a critical dimension for a distance between subsequent conductive features in the sample in a lateral direction as a distance in the lateral direction for which the measured spin relaxation time exceeds a predetermined relaxation time threshold value; or induce a magnetic field and to determine the critical dimension for the distance between the subsequent conductive features as the distance in the lateral direction for which the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is less than a threshold value.
Stetson teaches the metrology device which is configured to: induce a magnetic field and to determine the critical dimension for the distance between the subsequent conductive features as the distance in the lateral direction for which the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is less than a threshold value (See paragraphs 1266-1267.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Stetson to the teachings of Heidmann such that the metrology device would be configured to induce a magnetic field and to determine the critical dimension for the distance between the subsequent conductive features as the distance in the lateral direction for which the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is less than a threshold value because this would allow one to have “the threshold value [can] be adjusted to adjust the sensitivity of the system.” See paragraph 1267.
Regarding claim 4, Heidmann teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Heidmann does not explicitly teach the metrology device which is configured to: measure a spin relaxation time and to determine a depth of a conductive feature in the sample having a known thickness to be the depth value for the depth of the conductive feature for a conductive feature having the known thickness and for which an expected value of the spin relaxation time is equal to the measured value of the spin relaxation time; or induce a magnetic field and to determine the depth of the conductive feature in the sample having a known thickness to be the depth value for the depth of the conductive feature for the conductive feature having the known thickness and for which-the an expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field.
Stetson teaches the metrology device which is configured to: induce a magnetic field and to determine the depth of the conductive feature in the sample having a known thickness to be the depth value for the depth of the conductive feature for the conductive feature having the known thickness and for which-the an expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field (See paragraphs 1266-1267 wherein the size of the flaw correlates to the size of the threshold and a measured value.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Stetson to the teachings of Heidmann such that the metrology device would be configured to induce a magnetic field and to determine the depth of the conductive feature in the sample having a known thickness to be the depth value for the depth of the conductive feature for the conductive feature having the known thickness and for which-the an expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field because this would allow one to have “the threshold value [can] be adjusted to adjust the sensitivity of the system.” See paragraph 1267.
Regarding claim 5, Heidmann teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Heidmann does not explicitly teach the metrology device which is configured to: measure a spin relaxation time and to determine a thickness of a conductive feature in the sample at a known depth to be the thickness value for the thickness of the conductive feature for a conductive feature at the known depth and for which the an expected value of the spin relaxation time is equal to the measured value of the spin relaxation time; or induce a magnetic field and to determine the thickness of a the conductive feature in the sample at a known depth to be the thickness value for the thickness of the conductive feature for the conductive feature at the known depth and for which the expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field.
Stetson teaches the metrology device which is configured to: induce a magnetic field and to determine the thickness of a the conductive feature in the sample at a known depth to be the thickness value for the thickness of the conductive feature for the conductive feature at the known depth and for which the expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field (See paragraphs 1266-1267 wherein reflected current is equal in amplitude but opposite in phase.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Stetson to the teachings of Heidmann such that the metrology device would be configured to induce a magnetic field and to determine the thickness of a the conductive feature in the sample at a known depth to be the thickness value for the thickness of the conductive feature for the conductive feature at the known depth and for which the expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field because this would allow one to have “the threshold value [can] be adjusted to adjust the sensitivity of the system.” See paragraph 1267.
Regarding claim 6, Heidmann teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Heidmann does not explicitly teach the metrology device configured to detect a void or defect in a conductive feature in the sample by: determining that a detected spin relaxation time deviates from a reference value for said the conductive feature; or inducing a magnetic field and determining that a detected magnetic field deviates from a reference value for the conductive feature.
Stetson teaches the metrology device configured to detect a void or defect in a conductive feature in the sample by inducing a magnetic field and determining that a detected magnetic field deviates from a reference value for the conductive feature (See paragraphs 1266-1267.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Stetson to the teachings of Heidmann such that the metrology device would be configured to detect a void or defect in a conductive feature in the sample by inducing a magnetic field and determining that a detected magnetic field deviates from a reference value for the conductive feature because this would allow one to have “the threshold value [can] be adjusted to adjust the sensitivity of the system.” See paragraph 1267.
Regarding claim 7, Heidmann teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Heidmann does not explicitly teach the metrology device configured to detect a deviation of a material property of a conductive feature in the sample by: determining that a detected relaxation time deviates from a reference value for said the conductive feature; or inducing a magnetic field and determining that the detected magnetic field deviates from a reference value for the conductive feature.
Stetson teaches the metrology device configured to detect a deviation of a material property of a conductive feature in the sample by inducing a magnetic field and determining that the detected magnetic field deviates from a reference value for the conductive feature (See paragraphs 1266-1267.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Stetson to the teachings of Heidmann such that the metrology device would be configured to detect a deviation of a material property of a conductive feature in the sample by inducing a magnetic field and determining that the detected magnetic field deviates from a reference value for the conductive feature because this would allow one to have “the threshold value [can] be adjusted to adjust the sensitivity of the system.” See paragraph 1267.
Regarding claim 12, Heidmann teaches all elements of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Heidmann does not explicitly teach the metrology device which is configured to: measure a spin relaxation time and to determine a critical dimension for the distance between subsequent conductive features in the sample in a lateral direction as a distance in the lateral direction for which the measured spin relaxation time exceeds a predetermined relaxation time threshold value; or induce a magnetic field and to determine the critical dimension for the distance between the subsequent conductive features as the distance in the lateral direction for which the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is less than a threshold value.
Stetson teaches the metrology device which is configured to: induce a magnetic field and to determine the critical dimension for the distance between the subsequent conductive features as the distance in the lateral direction for which the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is less than a threshold value (See paragraphs 1266-1267.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Stetson to the teachings of Heidmann such that the metrology device would be configured to : induce a magnetic field and to determine the critical dimension for the distance between the subsequent conductive features as the distance in the lateral direction for which the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is less than a threshold value because this would allow one to have “the threshold value [can] be adjusted to adjust the sensitivity of the system.” See paragraph 1267.
Regarding claim 13, Heidmann teaches all elements of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Heidmann does not explicitly teach the metrology device which is configured to measure a spin relaxation time and to determine a depth of a conductive feature in the sample having a known thickness to be the depth value for the depth of the conductive feature for a conductive feature having the known thickness and for which an expected value of the spin relaxation time is equal to the measured value of the spin relaxation time; or induce a magnetic field and to determine the depth of the conductive feature in the sample having a known thickness to be the depth value for the depth of the conductive feature for the conductive feature having the known thickness and for which an expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field.
Stetson teaches the metrology device which is configured to induce a magnetic field and to determine the depth of the conductive feature in the sample having a known thickness to be the depth value for the depth of the conductive feature for the conductive feature having the known thickness and for which an expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field (See paragraphs 1266-1267 wherein reflected current is equal in amplitude but opposite in phase.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Stetson to the teachings of Heidmann such that the metrology device would be configured to induce a magnetic field and to determine the depth of the conductive feature in the sample having a known thickness to be the depth value for the depth of the conductive feature for the conductive feature having the known thickness and for which an expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field because this would allow one to have “the threshold value [can] be adjusted to adjust the sensitivity of the system.” See paragraph 1267.
Regarding claim 14, Heidmann teaches all elements of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Heidmann does not explicitly teach measure a spin relaxation time and to determine a thickness of a conductive feature in the sample at a known depth to be the thickness value for the thickness of the conductive feature for the conductive feature at the known depth and for which an expected value of the spin relaxation time is equal to the measured value of the spin relaxation time; or induce a magnetic field and to determine the thickness of the conductive feature in the sample at a known depth to be the thickness value for the thickness of the conductive feature for the conductive feature at the known depth and for which the expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field.
Stetson teaches the metrology device which is configured to induce a magnetic field and to determine the thickness of the conductive feature in the sample at a known depth to be the thickness value for the thickness of the conductive feature for the conductive feature at the known depth and for which the expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field (See paragraphs 1266-1267 wherein reflected current is equal in amplitude but opposite in phase.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Stetson to the teachings of Heidmann such that the metrology device would be configured to induce a magnetic field and to determine the thickness of the conductive feature in the sample at a known depth to be the thickness value for the thickness of the conductive feature for the conductive feature at the known depth and for which the expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field because this would allow one to have “the threshold value [can] be adjusted to adjust the sensitivity of the system.” See paragraph 1267.
Regarding claim 15, Heidmann teaches all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Heidmann does not explicitly teach measure a spin relaxation time and to determine a depth of a conductive feature in the sample having a known thickness to be the depth value for the depth of the conductive feature for a conductive feature having the known thickness and for which an expected value of the spin relaxation time is equal to the measured value of the spin relaxation time; or induce a magnetic field and to determine the depth of the conductive feature in the sample having a known thickness to be the depth value for the depth of the conductive feature for the conductive feature having the known thickness and for which an expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field.
Stetson teaches the metrology device which is configured to induce a magnetic field and to determine the depth of the conductive feature in the sample having a known thickness to be the depth value for the depth of the conductive feature for the conductive feature having the known thickness and for which an expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field (See paragraphs 1266-1267 wherein reflected current is equal in amplitude but opposite in phase.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Stetson to the teachings of Heidmann such that the metrology device would be configured to induce a magnetic field and to determine the depth of the conductive feature in the sample having a known thickness to be the depth value for the depth of the conductive feature for the conductive feature having the known thickness and for which an expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field because this would allow one to have “the threshold value [can] be adjusted to adjust the sensitivity of the system.” See paragraph 1267.
Regarding claim 16, Heidmann teaches all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Heidmann does not explicitly teach measure a spin relaxation time and to determine a thickness of a conductive feature in the sample at a known depth to be the thickness value for the thickness of the conductive feature for a conductive feature at the known depth and for which an expected value of the spin relaxation time is equal to the measured value of the spin relaxation time; or induce a magnetic field and to determine the thickness of the conductive feature in the sample at a known depth to be the thickness value for the thickness of the conductive feature for the conductive feature at the known depth and for which the expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field.
Stetson teaches the metrology device which is configured to induce a magnetic field and to determine the thickness of the conductive feature in the sample at a known depth to be the thickness value for the thickness of the conductive feature for the conductive feature at the known depth and for which the expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field (See paragraphs 1266-1267 wherein reflected current is equal in amplitude but opposite in phase.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Stetson to the teachings of Heidmann such that the metrology device would be configured to induce a magnetic field and to determine the thickness of the conductive feature in the sample at a known depth to be the thickness value for the thickness of the conductive feature for the conductive feature at the known depth and for which the expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field because this would allow one to have “the threshold value [can] be adjusted to adjust the sensitivity of the system.” See paragraph 1267.
Regarding claim 17, Heidmann teaches all elements of claim 4, upon which this claim depends.
Heidmann does not explicitly teach measure a spin relaxation time and to determine a thickness of a conductive feature in the sample at a known depth to be the thickness value for the thickness of the conductive feature for a conductive feature at the known depth and for which an expected value of the spin relaxation time is equal to the measured value of the spin relaxation time; or induce a magnetic field and to determine the thickness of the conductive feature in the sample at a known depth to be the thickness value for the thickness of the conductive feature for the conductive feature at the known depth and for which the expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field.
Stetson teaches the metrology device which is configured to induce a magnetic field and to determine the thickness of the conductive feature in the sample at a known depth to be the thickness value for the thickness of the conductive feature for the conductive feature at the known depth and for which the expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field (See paragraphs 1266-1267 wherein reflected current is equal in amplitude but opposite in phase.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Stetson to the teachings of Heidmann such that the metrology device would be configured to induce a magnetic field and to determine the thickness of the conductive feature in the sample at a known depth to be the thickness value for the thickness of the conductive feature for the conductive feature at the known depth and for which the expected value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field is equal to the measured value of the change of the magnetic field relative to the induced magnetic field because this would allow one to have “the threshold value [can] be adjusted to adjust the sensitivity of the system.” See paragraph 1267.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 & 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art listed does not anticipate alone or combine in an obvious manner to teach the invention claimed by applicant. The further required limitations are not an obvious variation to the two references cited in the parent claim 2. The specific structural and functional limitations provided in claims 9 & 19 cannot be obviously combined with the 103 references already cited for parent claim 2 without impermissible hindsight.
Regarding claim 9,
The metrology device according to claim 1, comprising: a magnetic coil; a current generator to supply the magnetic coil with supply-current to induce an magnetic field in the sample; and a frequency control unit to control an operational frequency of the current generator, wherein the frequency control unit is configured to subsequently select mutually different operational frequencies to perform a frequency sweep or to cause the current generator to generate a supply current having at least a first component and a second component of mutually different frequency, and wherein the signal processor comprises signal processor components to determine respective changes in a magnetic field for a lateral position near the surface of the sample resulting from a source magnetic field for respective mutually different magnetic field frequencies, and to determine material properties of a material at the lateral position in the sample from the determined respective changes.
Regarding claim 10,
The metrology device according to claim 9, further comprising a permanent magnet to provide a background magnetic field in the diamond tip.
Regarding claim 19,
The metrology device according to claim 2, comprising: a magnetic coil and a current generator to supply the magnetic coil with supply-current to induce an magnetic field in the sample; and a frequency control unit to control an operational frequency of the current generator, wherein the frequency control unit is configured to select mutually different operational frequencies to perform a frequency sweep or to cause the current generator to generate a supply current having at least a first component and a second component of mutually different frequency, and wherein the signal processor comprises signal processor components to: determine respective changes in a magnetic field for a lateral position near the surface of the sample resulting from a source magnetic field for respective mutually different magnetic field frequencies, and determine material properties of a material at the lateral position of the sample from the determined changes.
Regarding claim 20,
The metrology device according to claim 19, further comprising a permanent magnet to provide a background magnetic field in the diamond tip.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on 571-270-5628. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858