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 .
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 following must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
Claims 1, 11: “a selector, disposed on the beam axis at a position substantially corresponding to a third crossover plane downstream of the optical element” (emphasis added);
Claim 11: “a condenser lens”;
Claim 20: “input optics”.
No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “340” has been used to designate both “a third crossover” (paragraphs 0039, 0049) and “a selector” (paragraph 0049).
Figures 2, 4, and 8A-8B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description:
Paragraph 0036: 200.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description:
FIG. 4: 430.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0032 refers to “FIG. 2A and FIG. 2B”; there are no figures labeled FIG. 2A or FIG. 2B;
Paragraph 0049 discloses “a trajectory 540 that defines a second crossover 535…a trajectory 545 that intersects the cutoff 520.” This is inconsistent with FIG. 5, which shows trajectory 540 intersecting the cutoff and trajectory 545 defining the crossover 535;
Paragraph 0053: the variable η should be defined;
Paragraph 0081: “the example process 500” should read “the example process [[500]]700”;
Paragraph 0086 refers to “FIGs. 8A-10B”; there are no figures labeled FIG. 10, FIG. 10A, or FIG. 10B;
Paragraph 0088: “half width 905 at 1/100 810” should read “half width 905 at 1/100 [[810]]910”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) below.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
The claim limitation “an optical element…configured to focus the beam” (claims 1 and 11) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This claim limitation does not use the word “means,” but is nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the limitation uses a generic placeholder (“optical element”) that is coupled with functional language (“configured to focus the beam”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no disclosure in the specification of a particular structure which is referred to as an “optical element”. Therefore, the specification fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) with respect to independent claims 1 and 11.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected because of their dependence on claims 1 and 11, respectively.
The claim limitation “input optics configured to receive the beam…and to focus the beam” (claim 20) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This claim limitation does not use the word “means,” but is nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the limitation uses a generic placeholder (“input optics”) that is coupled with functional language (“configured to receive the beam…and to focus the beam”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The only disclosure of “input optics” in the specification is as follows:
“The input optics can be configured to receive the beam of charged particles from the charged particle source. The input optics can also be configured to focus the beam of charged particles toward the beam axis. The input optics can be disposed on the beam axis between the charged particle source and the monochromator” (paragraph 0009). This disclosure defines the input optics both positionally and by the function performed, but fails to disclose any structure which performs said function.
Therefore, the specification fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) with respect to claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20 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 8 recites the limitation “the energy selector” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the energy selector” to mean “the
Claim 9 is rejected because of its dependence on claim 8.
The claim limitation “an optical element…configured to focus the beam” (claims 1 and 11) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) supra). However, there is no disclosure in the specification of the “optical element” having a particular structure. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected because of their dependence on claims 1 and 11, respectively.
The claim limitation “input optics configured to receive the beam…and to focus the beam” (claim 20) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) supra). However, there is no disclosure in the specification of the “input optics” having a particular structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure(s), material(s), or acts perform the entire claimed function(s), without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure(s), material(s), or acts disclosed therein to the function(s) recited in the claims, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure(s), material(s), or acts and clearly links them to the function(s) so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure(s), material(s), or acts perform the claimed function(s), applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure(s), material(s), or acts for performing the claimed function(s) and clearly links or associates the structure(s), material(s), or acts to the claimed function(s), without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure(s), material(s), or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function(s). For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 recites “[t]he charged particle optical device of claim 13”, and claim 16 recites “[t]he charged particle optical device of claim 15.” Claims 13 and 15 are directed to a system, not a charged particle optical device. Claims 15-16 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 14.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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 1-7, 10-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frosien (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0164228 A1), hereinafter Frosien (‘228), in view of Tsuno et al. (JP Patent No. 2016/126914 A), hereinafter Tsuno (English machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Frosien (‘228) discloses a charged particle optical device (FIG. 3), comprising:
a Wien filter (FIG. 3, element 110) disposed on a beam axis (Z axis), the Wien filter being configured to disperse particles of a beam of charged particles by energy (paragraph 0062, lines 5-7) in a dispersion plane parallel with the beam axis (X-Z plane);
an optical element disposed on the beam axis downstream of the Wien filter and configured to focus the beam of charged particles toward the beam axis (FIG. 6b, element 710); and
a selector, disposed on the beam axis downstream of the optical element (FIG. 6b, element 511).
Frosien (‘228) fails to disclose that the selector is disposed at a position substantially corresponding to a third crossover plane downstream of the optical element.
However, Tsuno discloses a selector (FIG. 5, element 9) disposed at a position substantially corresponding to a third crossover plane (page 8, paragraph beginning “By configuring…”, lines 4-5) downstream of the optical element (FIG. 5, element 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Frosien (‘228) to include that the selector is disposed at a position substantially corresponding to a third crossover plane downstream of the optical element, based on the teachings of Tsuno that this improves energy selection of electrons with high resolution and low aberration effects (Tsuno, page 5, “Advantageous Effects” paragraphs 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno as applied to claim 1 discloses the charged particle optical device of claim 1.
In addition, Frosien (‘228) discloses that the beam of charged particles defines a first crossover plane at a first point on the beam axis within the Wien filter, and a second crossover plane downstream of the first crossover plane at a second point on the beam axis (FIG. 3).
In addition, Tsuno discloses that the second crossover plane substantially coincides with an exit from the Wien filter (page 6, second paragraph from the last, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno to include that the second crossover plane substantially coincides with an exit from the Wien filter, based on the additional teachings of Tsuno that this minimizes beam aberrations (Tsuno, page 6, second paragraph from the last).
Regarding claim 3, Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno as applied to claim 1 discloses the charged particle optical device of claim 1.
In addition, Frosien (‘228) discloses that the Wien filter comprises a double-focusing Wien filter (paragraph 0012, lines 3-4 and paragraph 0013, lines 6-8; the Wien filter is capable of focusing particles in both the X-Z and Y-Z planes).
Regarding claim 4, Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno as applied to claim 1 discloses the charged particle optical device of claim 1.
In addition, Frosien (‘228) discloses that the Wien filter is characterized by an excitation parameter, φ (paragraph 0043).
Optimizing the excitation of the Wien filter is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Frosien (‘228) teaches that “[s]tarting to increase the excitation, the excitation leads to an increased deflection angle…if the excitation of Wien filter 122 is further increased the charged particle beam reaches a limiting deflection angle” (Frosien (‘228), paragraph 0043). As such, Frosien (‘228) identifies the excitation of the Wien filter as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., modifying the deflection angle of charged particles. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the excitation of the Wien filter and identifies said excitation as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the excitation of the Wien filter to meet the claimed excitation parameter value since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 5, Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno as applied to claim 4 discloses the charged particle optical device of claim 4.
Optimizing the excitation of the Wien filter is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Frosien (‘228) teaches that “[s]tarting to increase the excitation, the excitation leads to an increased deflection angle…if the excitation of Wien filter 122 is further increased the charged particle beam reaches a limiting deflection angle” (Frosien (‘228), paragraph 0043). As such, Frosien (‘228) identifies the excitation of the Wien filter as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., modifying the deflection angle of charged particles. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the excitation of the Wien filter and identifies said excitation as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the excitation of the Wien filter to meet the claimed excitation parameter value since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 6, Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno as applied to claim 5 discloses the charged particle optical device of claim 5.
Optimizing the excitation of the Wien filter is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Frosien (‘228) teaches that “[s]tarting to increase the excitation, the excitation leads to an increased deflection angle…if the excitation of Wien filter 122 is further increased the charged particle beam reaches a limiting deflection angle” (Frosien (‘228), paragraph 0043). As such, Frosien (‘228) identifies the excitation of the Wien filter as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., modifying the deflection angle of charged particles. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the excitation of the Wien filter and identifies said excitation as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the excitation of the Wien filter to meet the claimed excitation parameter value since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 7, Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno as applied to claim 1 discloses the charged particle optical device of claim 1.
In addition, Frosien (‘228) discloses that the optical element is further configured to accelerate the particles of the beam of charged particles (claim 25).
Regarding claim 10, Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno as applied to claim 1 discloses the charged particle optical device of claim 1.
In addition, Frosien (‘228) discloses that the selector defines an aperture (paragraph 0058).
Optimizing the characteristic width of the selector aperture is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Frosien (‘228) teaches that “electrons with an allowed energy deviation can pass through the electron selection means and are not blocked. Portions of the electrons with an energy deviating from the nominal energy
E
n
can be blocked by the electron selection means” (Frosien (‘228), paragraph 0058), and “the position of an electron along the x-direction decides whether or not that electron is blocked at electron selection element 511” (Frosien (‘228), paragraph 0080). As such, Frosien (‘228) identifies the characteristic width of the selector aperture as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., passing or blocking certain electrons as desired. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the characteristic width of the selector aperture and identifies said width as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the characteristic width of the selector aperture to meet the claimed width since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 11, Frosien (‘228) discloses a charged particle beam system (FIG. 6b), comprising:
a charged particle source (FIG. 6b, element 6), configured to generate a beam of charged particles (paragraph 0081) substantially aligned with a beam axis (FIG. 6b, element 5);
a monochromator (paragraph 0007: “Wien filters are known as monochromators”; FIG. 6b, element 100), comprising:
a Wien filter (FIG. 3, element 110) disposed on the beam axis (FIG. 3, Z axis), the Wien filter being configured to disperse particles of the beam of charged particles by energy (paragraph 0062, lines 5-7) in a dispersion plane parallel with the beam axis (X-Z plane);
an optical element disposed on the beam axis downstream of the Wien filter and configured to focus the beam of charged particles toward the beam axis (FIG. 6b, element 710); and
a selector, disposed on the beam axis downstream of the optical element (FIG. 6b, element 511); and
a condenser lens (FIG. 7b, element 8), disposed on the beam axis downstream of the monochromator (FIG. 7b) and configured to focus particles of the beam of charged particles toward the beam axis (FIG. 7b shows the beam of charged particles, between lens 8 and sample 4, focused by lens 8 toward the beam axis 5).
Frosien (‘228) fails to disclose that the selector is disposed at a position substantially corresponding to a third crossover plane downstream of the optical element.
However, Tsuno discloses a selector (FIG. 5, element 9) disposed at a position substantially corresponding to a third crossover plane (page 8, paragraph beginning “By configuring…”, lines 4-5) downstream of the optical element (FIG. 5, element 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Frosien (‘228) to include that the selector is disposed at a position substantially corresponding to a third crossover plane downstream of the optical element, based on the teachings of Tsuno that this improves energy selection of electrons with high resolution and low aberration effects (Tsuno, Tsuno, page 5, “Advantageous Effects” paragraphs 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno as applied to claim 11 discloses the system of claim 11.
In addition, Frosien (‘228) discloses that the beam of charged particles defines a first crossover plane at a first point on the beam axis within the Wien filter, and a second crossover plane downstream of the first crossover plane at a second point on the beam axis (FIG. 3).
In addition, Tsuno discloses that the second crossover plane substantially coincides with an exit from the Wien filter (page 6, second paragraph from the last, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno to include that the second crossover plane substantially coincides with an exit from the Wien filter, based on the additional teachings of Tsuno that this minimizes beam aberrations (Tsuno, page 6, second paragraph from the last).
Regarding claim 13, Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno as applied to claim 11 discloses the system of claim 11.
In addition, Frosien (‘228) discloses that the Wien filter comprises a double-focusing Wien filter (paragraph 0012, lines 3-4 and paragraph 0013, lines 6-8; the Wien filter is capable of focusing particles in both the X-Z and Y-Z planes).
Regarding claim 14, Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno as applied to claim 13 discloses the system of claim 13.
In addition, Frosien (‘228) discloses that the Wien filter is characterized by an excitation parameter, φ (paragraph 0043).
Optimizing the excitation of the Wien filter is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Frosien (‘228) teaches that “[s]tarting to increase the excitation, the excitation leads to an increased deflection angle…if the excitation of Wien filter 122 is further increased the charged particle beam reaches a limiting deflection angle” (Frosien (‘228), paragraph 0043). As such, Frosien (‘228) identifies the excitation of the Wien filter as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., modifying the deflection angle of charged particles. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the excitation of the Wien filter and identifies said excitation as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the excitation of the Wien filter to meet the claimed excitation parameter value since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 15, Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno as applied to claim 14 discloses the system of claim 14.
Optimizing the excitation of the Wien filter is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Frosien (‘228) teaches that “[s]tarting to increase the excitation, the excitation leads to an increased deflection angle…if the excitation of Wien filter 122 is further increased the charged particle beam reaches a limiting deflection angle” (Frosien (‘228), paragraph 0043). As such, Frosien (‘228) identifies the excitation of the Wien filter as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., modifying the deflection angle of charged particles. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the excitation of the Wien filter and identifies said excitation as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the excitation of the Wien filter to meet the claimed excitation parameter value since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 16, Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno as applied to claim 15 discloses the system of claim 15.
Optimizing the excitation of the Wien filter is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Frosien (‘228) teaches that “[s]tarting to increase the excitation, the excitation leads to an increased deflection angle…if the excitation of Wien filter 122 is further increased the charged particle beam reaches a limiting deflection angle” (Frosien (‘228), paragraph 0043). As such, Frosien (‘228) identifies the excitation of the Wien filter as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., modifying the deflection angle of charged particles. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the excitation of the Wien filter and identifies said excitation as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the excitation of the Wien filter to meet the claimed excitation parameter value since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 17, Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno as applied to claim 11 discloses the system of claim 11.
In addition, Frosien (‘228) discloses that the optical element is further configured to accelerate the particles of the beam of charged particles (claim 25).
Regarding claim 19, Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno as applied to claim 11 discloses the system of claim 11.
In addition, Frosien (‘228) discloses that the selector defines an aperture (paragraph 0058).
Optimizing the characteristic diameter of the selector aperture is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Frosien (‘228) teaches that “electrons with an allowed energy deviation can pass through the electron selection means and are not blocked. Portions of the electrons with an energy deviating from the nominal energy
E
n
can be blocked by the electron selection means” (Frosien (‘228), paragraph 0058), and “the position of an electron along the x-direction decides whether or not that electron is blocked at electron selection element 511” (Frosien (‘228), paragraph 0080). As such, Frosien (‘228) identifies the characteristic diameter of the selector aperture as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., passing or blocking certain electrons as desired. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the characteristic diameter of the selector aperture and identifies said diameter as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the characteristic diameter of the selector aperture to meet the claimed diameter since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 20, Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno as applied to claim 11 discloses the system of claim 11.
In addition, Frosien (‘228) discloses input optics (FIG. 7b, element 610) configured to receive the beam of charged particles from the charged particle source and to focus the beam of charged particles toward the beam axis (paragraph 0060), wherein the input optics are disposed on the beam axis (FIG. 7b, beam axis 5) between the charged particle source (FIG. 7b, element 6) and the monochromator (FIG. 7b, element 100).
Claims 8-9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno as respectively applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Frosien et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0069150 A1), hereinafter Frosien (‘150).
Regarding claim 8, Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno as applied to claim 1 discloses the charged particle optical device of claim 1.
Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno fails to disclose that the beam of charged particles is characterized by a first beam current from about 5 nA to about 50 nA at an entrance to the Wien filter and a second beam current greater than about 60 pA below the energy selector.
However, Frosien (‘150) discloses that the beam of charged particles is characterized by a first beam current at an entrance to the Wien filter (paragraph 0101, lines 8-9) and a second beam current below the energy selector (paragraph 0101: the Wien filter is used to adjust the beam current, i.e., the beam current is different downstream of the Wien filter than upstream of the Wien filter; FIG. 4a shows energy selector 116 downstream of Wien filter 110; therefore, the beam current at the entrance to the Wien filter 110 is different from the beam current below the energy selector 116).
Optimizing the beam current is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Frosien (‘150) teaches that the disclosed system may be used “to flexibly adjust the beam current and thereby the dispersion” (Frosien (‘150), paragraph 0101). As such, Frosien (‘150) identifies the beam current as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., adjusting beam dispersion. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the beam current and identifies said current as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the beam current to meet the claimed current magnitude since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 9, Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno and Frosien (‘150) as applied to claim 8 discloses the charged particle optical device of claim 8.
In addition, Frosien (‘228) discloses that, downstream of the selector, the beam of charged particles is characterized by an energy distribution (paragraph 0082, lines 13-16) having a half-width at one hundredth of a maximum value from about 40 meV to about 200 meV.
Optimizing the energy distribution of the beam of charged particles is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Frosien (‘228) teaches that “the energy width of the electron beam and, accordingly, chromatic aberration are reduced” (Frosien (‘228), paragraph 0082, lines 13-16). As such, Frosien (‘228) identifies the energy distribution of the beam of charged particles as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., reducing chromatic aberration. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the energy distribution of the beam of charged particles and identifies said energy distribution as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the energy distribution of the beam of charged particles to meet the claimed energy distribution since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 18, Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno as applied to claim 11 discloses the system of claim 11.
In addition, Frosien (‘228) discloses that, downstream of the monochromator, the beam of charged particles is characterized by an energy distribution (paragraph 0082, lines 13-16) having a half-width at one hundredth of a maximum value of about 80 meV to about 200 meV.
Optimizing the energy distribution of the beam of charged particles is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Frosien (‘228) teaches that “the energy width of the electron beam and, accordingly, chromatic aberration are reduced” (Frosien (‘228), paragraph 0082, lines 13-16). As such, Frosien (‘228) identifies the energy distribution of the beam of charged particles as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., reducing chromatic aberration. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the energy distribution of the beam of charged particles and identifies said energy distribution as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the energy distribution of the beam of charged particles to meet the claimed energy distribution since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Frosien (‘228) in view of Tsuno fails to disclose fails to disclose that the beam of charged particles is characterized by a first beam current from about 5 nA to about 50 nA at an entrance to the Wien filter, wherein the beam of charged particles is characterized by a second beam current greater than about 60 pA at an exit of the Wien filter.
However, Frosien (‘150) discloses that the beam of charged particles is characterized by a first beam current at an entrance to the Wien filter (paragraph 0101, lines 8-9), wherein the beam of charged particles is characterized by a second beam current at an exit of the Wien filter (paragraph 0101: the Wien filter is used to adjust the beam current, i.e., the beam current is different downstream of the Wien filter than upstream of the Wien filter).
Optimizing the beam current is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Frosien (‘150) teaches that the disclosed system may be used “to flexibly adjust the beam current and thereby the dispersion” (Frosien (‘150), paragraph 0101). As such, Frosien (‘150) identifies the beam current as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., adjusting beam dispersion. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the beam current and identifies said current as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the beam current to meet the claimed current magnitude since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Frosien et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0200069 A1), hereinafter Frosien (‘069), teaches a Wien filter characterized by an excitation parameter.
Andersen (U.S. Patent No. 3,979,590 A), hereinafter Andersen, teaches a charged particle optical device, comprising: a Wien filter disposed on a beam axis, the Wien filter being configured to disperse particles of a beam of charged particles by energy in a dispersion plane parallel with the beam axis; an optical element disposed on the beam axis downstream of the Wien filter and configured to focus the beam of charged particles toward the beam axis; and a selector, disposed on the beam axis downstream of the optical element.
Jiang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0340200 A1), hereinafter Jiang, teaches a charged particle beam system, comprising: a charged particle source, configured to generate a beam of charged particles substantially aligned with a beam axis; a monochromator, comprising: a Wien filter disposed on the beam axis, the Wien filter being configured to disperse particles of the beam of charged particles by energy in a dispersion plane parallel with the beam axis; and a condenser lens, disposed on the beam axis downstream of the monochromator and configured to focus particles of the beam of charged particles toward the beam axis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights