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 § 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 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.
Claim(s) 55, 58, 61, 68, 69, 90, 92, 93, and 106 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 (US 20180058928 A1).
With regards to claim 55, D1 discloses a beam imaging diagnostics system comprising;
two or more imaging [0149] components 121, 122 coupled to and extending into [0144] an interior of a pumping chamber 110 and orthogonally oriented to a beam propagation axis of the pumping chamber (Fig. 4), wherein the pumping chamber is positionable along a beam line [0128], and wherein the two or more imaging components are configured to substantially non-invasively monitor a beam advancing through the beam line with injection of a gas [0134]; and
a gas puff port (output side of valve 114) extending from the pumping chamber and providing a passage into the pumping chamber (Fig. 5).
With regards to claim 58, D1 discloses wherein the beam imaging diagnostics system is configured to monitor beam parameters of the beam advancing through the beam line, and wherein the beam parameters comprise one or more of size, location, inclination, or profile [0027].
With regards to claims 61 and 68, D1 discloses wherein the two or more imaging components comprise one or more of an adjustable detector exposure time or a camera coupled with a lens [0145, 0147].
With regards to claim 69, D1 discloses wherein the gas puff port is driven by a gas valve 114 configured to control an amount of gas puffed and a time when the amount of gas is puffed into the pumping chamber (in response to the pressure sensor) [0127].
With regards to claim 90, D1 discloses a method of noninvasively monitoring parameters of a beam advancing along a beam line, the method comprising:
puffing gas into a pumping chamber [0127]; and
measuring one or more beam parameters based on fluorescence resulting from collisions of energetic beam particulates of a beam advancing through the beam line [0129-0134].
With regards to claim 92, D1 discloses puffing the gas into the pumping chamber along the beam line such that disturbance to the beam advancing through the beam line is minimized (by maintaining controlled pressure) [0021-0023].
With regards to claim 93, D1 discloses measuring the one or more beam parameters such that disturbance to the beam advancing through the beam line is minimized (using noninvasive measuring) [0129-0134].
With regards to claim 106, D1 discloses wherein the gas comprises one or more of argon or xenon [0136].
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 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 62, 64, 65, 70-73, 94-96 and 98 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
With regards to claims 62 and 64, D1 discloses windows 151, 152 to transmit radiation from to the imaging components [0144], but does not teach the claimed optical tube and aperture. However, such a configuration was already known. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed optical tube and aperture in order to reduce unwanted stray light.
With regards to claim 65, D1 discloses wherein the imaging components comprise filtering optics that are arranged to filter out one or more bands of radiation [0145], but does not explicitly teach the claimed interference bandpass filter. However, since interference bandpass filters were conventionally known in the art, modifying D1 with the claimed filter would have been obvious in view of improving SNR and to isolate fluorescent wavelengths.
With regards to claim 70, D1 does not teach controlling a location of gas puffed into the pumping chamber such that a uniform distribution of gas is achieved. However, since uniform gas density would improve measurement accuracy, positioning the injection ports to achieve uniform distribution would have been obvious.
With regards to claims 71-73, D1 discloses wherein the camera comprises a size (inherent feature).
With regards to claim 94, D1 discloses wherein gas is present during beam passage [0021] and further wherein pressure is controlled and maintained [0023], but doe not explicitly teach puffing the gas into the pumping chamber one of while the beam advances through the beam line or prior to a pulse of the beam advancing through the beam line. Nevertheless, such a modification was known and would have been obvious in view of maintaining a desired gas density and/or pressure.
With regards to claim 95, D1 discloses wherein the one or more beam parameters comprise a beam position [0009].
With regards to claim 96, D1 discloses wherein measuring comprises recording a glow of fluorescence from a beam-gas interaction region using two or more orthogonally oriented imaging components [0129-0134] (Fig. 4).
With regards to claim 98, D1 discloses wherein the system may be suitable for determining a power of a pulsed radiation beam [0060], but does not teach delaying a trigger for the two or more orthogonally oriented imaging components relative to a pulse of the beam, wherein the trigger is delayed to accommodate for one or more of beam equilibration time or fluorescent emission delay. Nevertheless, those skilled in the art recognize that synchronizing the detectors with a pulsed radiation source was generally known and considered routine practice to account for signal equilibrium and fluorescence delay as an obvious optimization. Therefore, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed method step in order to account for signal equilibrium and fluorescence decay.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6465795 B1 teaches a charged particle beam system comprising a gas puff value introducing gas into a vacuum chamber via a port communicating with the chamber interior.
US 20130112888 A1 teaches a BPM comprising two orthogonal measurement chambers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached on 571-272-3995. 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights