DETAILED ACTION
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 7/24/26 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive. The remarks argue that Kataoka fails to disclose “a shielding plate configured to shield the sample from the ion beam and disposed such that an end surface thereof and an end surface serving as a processing surface of the sample are aligned with each other”, and points to the alignment (coplanar) of P1 (surface of the sample) and P2 (surface of the shielding pate) of the fig 1 in the application. As the remarks point out, Kataoka appears to fail to disclose the same identical configuration. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the meaning of “aligned”, Kataoka teaches that the bottom surface of 32 (shielding plate) and top surface of 33 (sample) are aligned (share the same surface plane in the XY plane, because they are touching). In other words, the application shows alignment (coplanar) of both the face surface and exposed end surface, while Kataoka shows alignment of the face surface but not the exposed end surface (note it is unclear how far the unexposed end surface extends into the device), and the claims are broad enough to read on the latter interpretation. Although the cited reference(s) is/are different from the invention claimed, the language of Applicant's claims are sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited reference(s).
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka et al. (US 20180342369 A1) [hereinafter Kataoka].
Regarding claim 1, Kataoka teaches an ion milling device comprising:
an ion source (see fig 1: 4) configured to emit an ion beam (e.g. [0036]);
a sample stage (see e.g. base, fig 3: 37) configured to hold a sample (see 33);
a shielding plate (see shielding plate, 32) configured to shield the sample from the ion beam (see fig 3, e.g. [0034]) and disposed such that an end surface thereof and an end surface serving as a processing surface of the sample are aligned with each other (defining end surfaces as the mating surfaces between sample and shield);
a sample stage drive mechanism (required for operation of system, see e.g. [0109]) configured to rotate the sample stage with a boundary between the end surface of the shielding plate and the end surface of the sample as a rotation axis (see [0069], rotation axis on the interface in 33a); and
a control unit (required for operation of system), wherein
a relative position between the ion source and the sample stage is adjusted such that a central axis of the ion beam (see fig 4a: L1) intersects the rotation axis (see R1), and
the control unit rotates the sample stage about the rotation axis using the sample stage drive mechanism (see discussion above) until a sample protrusion amount at which the sample protrudes from the shielding plate as viewed from the ion source reaches a predetermined magnitude (see tilt angle, [0070-71]), and thereafter performs milling on the sample by irradiating the sample with the ion beam from the ion source (e.g. [0093]).
Kataoka may fail to explicitly disclose rotating the sample stage until a sample protrusion amount at which the sample protrudes from the shielding plate as viewed from the ion source reaches a predetermined magnitude.
However, given the teaching that the system is aiming to position the sample relative to the ion beam (see e.g. protruding degree. [0041]), inasmuch as the references address mathematical calculations of the same problem, using same parameters, applying a modified mathematical approach without changing the issue being addressed is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. The equations themselves are not a patentable subject matter; as to the method steps utilizing particular equations, the use of particular mathematical means would have accomplished the same result. Additionally it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 2, Kataoka teaches the control unit stops irradiating the sample with the ion beam when a portion of the sample protruding from the shielding plate as viewed from the ion source is removed (e.g. obvious to stop irradiating during switching out samples), rotates the sample stage again about the rotation axis using the sample stage drive mechanism until the sample protrusion amount at which the sample protrudes from the shielding plate as viewed from the ion source reaches the predetermined magnitude (during e.g. subsequent sample milling, or e.g. finishing stage of etching, [0093]), and thereafter performs the milling on the sample by re-irradiating the sample with the ion beam from the ion source (see same).
Regarding claim 7, Kataoka teaches a movable mechanism (see e.g. Kataoka, fig 2: 5a, [0046]) configured to adjust a position of the sample stage (see [0046]).
Regarding claim 8, Kataoka teaches a camera (see fig 1: 8), wherein the camera is disposed such that an optical axis thereof is in parallel with the rotation axis (see fig 1), and the control unit confirms, based on an image captured by the camera (based on images displayed by both cameras), that the sample protrusion amount at which the sample protrudes from the shielding plate as viewed from the ion source is the predetermined magnitude (see Kataoka, [0035,41]).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaneko et al. (US 20190272973 A1) [hereinafter Kaneko].
Regarding claim 3, Kataoka teaches the control unit stops irradiating the sample with the ion beam when a portion of the sample protruding from the shielding plate as viewed from the ion source is removed (e.g. when processing is complete; alternately note given teaching of using camera to determine degree of protrusion (see [0041]), obviousness of stopping exposure when nothing is protruding). Kataoka may fail to explicitly disclose to end cross-section processing of the sample when it is determined that a target processing amount is removed from the sample. However, the use of setting target processing amounts and stopping processing when the amount is reached was well known in the art. For example, Kaneko teaches using a user-selected protrusion level (see Kaneko, [0031]) to end cross-section processing of the sample (see e.g. [0028], e.g. fig 3a) when it is determined that a target processing amount is removed from the sample (see [0031]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teaching of Kaneko in the system of the prior art to enable the use of user-selected protrusion levels in the manner taught by Kaneko.
Regarding claim 4, Kataoka may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Kaneko, for similar reasons as claim 5 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Kataoka and Kaneko teaches the control unit sets the predetermined magnitude according to a material of the sample (based on e.g. suitability of the sample material generally; alternately see based on hard materials, [0051-52]). Additionally it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 5, Kataoka may fail to explicitly disclose the sample stage drive mechanism swings the sample and the shielding plate in a predetermined angular range about a swing axis orthogonal to the rotation axis, and the relative position between the ion source and the sample stage is adjusted such that the rotation axis, the swing axis, and the central axis of the ion beam intersect at one point. However, Kaneko teaches a system to enable rotation of the specimen in all multiple directions to ensure more precise positioning of the beam with the position of a sample (see e.g. Kaneko, [0039-40,51]), said system comprising the sample stage drive mechanism swings the sample and the shielding plate in a predetermined angular range about a swing axis (see e.g. fig 3a: 115) orthogonal to the rotation axis (e.g. 121), and the relative position between the ion source and the sample stage is adjusted such that the rotation axis, the swing axis, and the central axis of the ion beam (see 116) intersect at one point (see fig 3a). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Kaneko in the system of the prior art to enable the ability to more precisely position the position the sample relative the beam, in the manner taught by Kaneko.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamoshida et al. (WO2019167165A1) (US 20210066020 A1 will be used as English language equivalent here) [hereinafter Kamoshida].
Regarding claim 6, Kataoka may fail to explicitly disclose a movable mechanism configured to adjust a position of the ion source. However, Kamoshida teaches a system to use removable ion sources in an ion milling system, which enables easier periodic cleaning (see e.g. Kamoshida, [0012]), while precisely aligning the source during reinstallation, comprising a movable mechanism configured to adjust a position of the ion source (see e.g. screws, [0031]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Kamoshida in the system of the prior art to enable the ability to provide removable ion sources and movable mechanism to provide precise adjustments of the source, in the manner taught by Kamoshida.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of She et al. (CN106531601A) [hereinafter She].
Regarding claim 9, Kataoka may fail to explicitly disclose a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the sample, wherein the control unit stops irradiating the sample with the ion beam when the temperature of the sample detected by the temperature sensor is equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature. However, the use of temperature sensors was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, She teaches problems with overheating that can cause carbonization and failure of products during ion beam etching when they exceed a certain threshold (see She, [0004], for example above 80 degrees for photoresists), and teaches an actively cooled stage system to help mitigate these problems including a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the sample (see thermocouple, [0012]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of She in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to prevent undesirable damage to the sample by excessive overheating over a given threshold, in the manner taught by She. Therefore, the combination of Kataoka and She teaches wherein the control unit stops irradiating the sample with the ion beam when the temperature of the sample detected by the temperature sensor is equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature (it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to stop irradiation (e.g. fail the product or reset the beam parameters to avoid further heating) past a given temperature where the material would be more likely to carbonize and/or fail), in the manner suggested by She, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to mitigate failure beyond the point where damage is known to have likely occurred to the sample.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Kataoka and She teaches the temperature sensor is a thermocouple (see She, [0012]).
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 extension fee 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 James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights