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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 11: The claim refers to “the engagement surface” but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim or in parent claim 1. A possible correction could be to recite instead --an engagement surface-- and accordingly is interpreted as such by the examiner for the purpose of expedient examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. US PG-PUB 2021/0396784 A1 (hereafter Wang).
As to claim 1: Wang discloses a method of batch-fabricating an array of probe devices for a surface analysis instrument (see fig. 4 and ¶ 36), the method including:
providing a probe (70; see fig. 4 and ¶ 36), the probe including
a cantilever (72; see fig. 4 and ¶ 35) defining a longitudinal cantilever axis (see fig. 4 regarding the horizontal direction depicted which runs along the longitudinal direction of the cantilever), and
a probe tip (74; see fig. 4 and ¶ 37);
removing a portion of the probe (see fig. 4 and ¶ 36 regarding notch 76 created by removal via focused ion beam milling); and
increasing or decreasing the size of the removed portion of the probe to generate a tilted probe tip having an engagement surface that deviates from being parallel with the longitudinal cantilever axis (see ¶ 36; as the ion beam creates notch 76, it will increase the size of the removed portion until reaching the desired final shape and size; see also fig. 4 and ¶ 36 regarding the shape in relation to the longitudinal cantilever axis).
As to claim 2: Wang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the removed portion of the probe is at least a portion of one of the tip (74) and the cantilever (72) (see fig. 4 regarding notch 76 and ¶ 36).
As to claim 3: Wang discloses the method of claim 2, wherein removing a portion of the probe (76) includes using a focused ion beam to remove a portion of the probe (see fig. 4 and ¶ 36).
As to claim 10: Wang discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the removed portion of the probe (76) is a portion of the probe tip (74) (see fig. 4 and ¶ 36).
As to claim 11: Wang discloses the method of claim 1, a distal end of the tip (74) having an engagement surface substantially parallel to at least one of the cantilever axis and a surface of a sample (see ¶ 36 and fig. 4 regarding the bottom surface 78 which is substantially parallel to the cantilever axis).
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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. US PG-PUB 2021/0396784 A1 (hereafter Wang) in view of Wong US PG-PUB 2019/0293682 A1 (hereafter Wong).
As to claim 4: Wang teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 2, including removing a portion of the probe (76; see fig. 4 and ¶ 36), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein removing a portion of the probe includes using lithography combined with at least one of dry and wet etching.
However, Wong teaches removing a portion of a probe includes using lithography combined with dry etching (see ¶ 52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s method such that the step of removing a portion of the probe includes using lithography combined with at least one of dry and wet etching because such fabrication steps are an art recognized means of achieving uniform shaped AFM probes with complex shapes such as ones that have high aspect ratios, such as suggested in ¶ 52 of Wong. Accordingly, such lithography step and etch would be useful in fabricating AFM tips using Wang’s method because more complex tip geometries could be utilized while still maintaining uniform production without risking variation between successive fabrications.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong US PG-PUB 2019/0293682 A1 (hereafter Wong) in view of Wang et al. US PG-PUB 2021/0396784 A1 (hereafter Wang).
As to claim 18: Wong teaches an AFM probe device microfabricated by a process (see fig. 6 and ¶ 52) comprising the steps of:
providing a wafer (202; see fig. 6 and ¶ 52);
creating a plurality of probes formed from the wafer (see ¶ 55), the probes including a cantilever and a probe tip (see ¶ 53-55).
Wong does not explicitly teach:
removing a portion of one or more the plurality of probes; and
increasing or decreasing the size of the remove portion of the one or more probes to generate a tilted probe tip having an engagement surface that deviates from being parallel with a longitudinal cantilever axis of the cantilever for the probe.
However, Wang teaches:
removing a portion of one or more of a plurality of probes (see fig. 4 and ¶ 36 regarding notch 76 created by removal via focused ion beam milling); and
increasing or decreasing the size of the removed portion of the one or more probes to generate a tilted probe tip having an engagement surface that deviates from being parallel with a longitudinal cantilever axis of the cantilever for the probe (see ¶ 36; as the ion beam creates notch 76, it will increase the size of the removed portion until reaching the desired final shape and size; see also fig. 4 and ¶ 36 regarding the shape in relation to the longitudinal cantilever axis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wong’s device by removing a portion of one or more the plurality of probes; and increasing or decreasing the size of the remove portion of the one or more probes to generate a tilted probe tip having an engagement surface that deviates from being parallel with a longitudinal cantilever axis of the cantilever for the probe because such a design is useful in creating a probe device that is capable of removing debris, such as suggested in Wang ¶ 36. Such a device is useful would be useful to Wong’s device because surface defects and debris can be detrimental due to difficult in cleaning and can affect force applied to/by the AFM tip, such as also suggested in Wang ¶ 14.
As to claim 19: Wong as modified by Wang teaches the probe device of claim 18, wherein the removed portion of the probe (76 of Wang) is a portion of the cantilever (see fig. 4 of Wang; the tip portion 74 that includes the removed portion 76 is a portion of cantilever 72 as depicted).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 and 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:
As to claim 5: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a method wherein increasing or decreasing the size of the removed portion of the probe includes using LOCOS oxidation to selectively grow oxide inside the removed portion to expand the size of the remove portion, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
In particular, while it is known per se in the art to utilize LOCOS in conjunction with AFM fabrication techniques, (see, for example Quate et al. “Sub-Micron Lithograph with the Atomic Force Microscope” page 4, third paragraph regarding LOCOS isolation utilized with hybrid AFM/STM lithography) but there is no disclosure or fair suggestion regarding increasing or decreasing size of a removed portion of a probe to include using LOCOS oxidation to selectively grow oxide inside the removed portion to expand the size of the removed portion (emphasis added) such as explicitly required as set forth by the limitations of claim 5 and when considered with the limitations of parent claim 1.
As to claim 6: The claim depends directly from claim 5 which was objected to as containing allowable subject matter for the reasons noted previously above and accordingly is also 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 at least by virtue of its dependency upon claim 5.
As to claim 7: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a method wherein removing the portion of the probe includes implanting a selectively expandable material within the removed portion of the probe, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
In particular, while Wang is considered to disclose removing a portion of a probe (see ¶ 36), there does not appear to be any disclosure or fair suggestion available in the cited prior art that render obvious removing a portion of the probe that includes implanting a selectively expandable material within the removed portion of the probe, such as required by the limitations of claim 7.
As to claims 8 and 9: Each of said claims depend ultimately from claim 7 and accordingly each is objected to as containing allowable subject matter for the reasons noted previously above and accordingly is also 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 at least by virtue of their dependency upon claim 7.
As to claim 20: The prior art of record does not teach or render obvious to the skilled artisan an AFM probe device wherein increasing or decreasing the size of the removed portion of the probe includes using LOCOS oxidation to selectively grow oxide inside the removed portion to expand the size of the removed portion, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 18 and 19.
In particular, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 5 and accordingly is also objected to as containing allowable subject matter for reasons similar thereto but not repeated herein for brevity.
Claims 12-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claim 12: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a probe device for a surface analysis instrument including a probe holder, the probe device comprising a probe device that includes an expanded filler in a removed portion of the probe device and the size of the removed portion is modified by the expanded filler to provide the angle, when considered in combination with the other limitations of the instant claim.
In particular, the claim recites features similar to claim 7 which was objected to previously above regarding an expanded filler in a removed portion of a probe and therefore the instant claim is also indicated allowable over the cited prior art of record for reasons similar thereto but not repeated herein for brevity.
As to claims 13-17: Each of said claims depends ultimately from claim 12 and accordingly each is indicated allowable over the cited prior art of record at least by virtue of their respective dependencies upon an allowable independent claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights