DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 August 2026.
With respect to the election of species, the remarks were found persuasive. However, there are still two species, specifically, claim 7 where the lens is fused to a distal end of the optical fiber and claim 8 where the lens is spaced from a distal end of the optical fiber and the sheath has a least one opening fluidically connecting the vacuum chamber and the space between the optical fiber and the lens. For instance, figure 2A shows lens 204 spaced via 205 from distal end 208 of optical fiber 202. Paragraph [0048] teaches in other examples the lens or lens system can be fused to the optical fiber. These are mutually exclusive characteristics. Specifically, the lens 204 cannot be both fused to and spaced from the optical fiber. Since claim 8 is elected, claim 7 is considered non-elected. The restriction is FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kociak et al. (US pgPub 2013/0087706) (first interpretation)
Regarding claim 1, Kociak et al. teach a light collection system (figs. 3-4, 314) for collecting light (ray entering 314 in figure 4) in response to a charged particle irradiation (in response to electron irradiation 104, see figure 1), the light collection system comprises:
an optical fiber (116, figures 3-4) with a first distal end (distal end of 116 facing ray trace in figure 4) enclosed in an elongated sheath (314 enclosing distal end of 116 in figure 4); and
a lens (316) positioned at a first distal end of the light collection system (316 is at distal end of 306), wherein the lens is optically coupled to the optical fiber (via 314, 316 is coupled to 116 in figure 4, see ray passing to 116 through 316 in figure 4) for directly collecting light emitted from a sample positioned in a vacuum chamber responsive to the charged particle irradiation (this limitation does not structurally distinguish the claim over that of the prior art. MPEP 2114 (II) recites “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) ”. Here, Kociak et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the light collection system, therefore the manner of operating the device (i.e. directly collecting light instead of Kociak’s indirect collection of light emitted from sample (106) positioned in a vacuum chamber 302 ([0140]) responsive to the electron beam (104)), does not distinguish the claimed device over that of the prior art), and wherein the light collection system is retractably inserted into the vacuum chamber ([0145] teaches inner cylinder 314 is removable thus retractable).
Regarding claim 2, Kociak et al. teach wherein the lens is mechanically coupled to the elongated sheath (fig. 4 shows 316 is coupled to 314 via a groove, thus mechanically coupled, see paragraph [0147] teaching 316 is centered very accurately to the optical axis of the collecting lens, therefore requiring some coupling. The instant specification does not specifically define how the lens is mechanically coupled, therefore provided that they are coupled, it is interpreted as mechanically coupled as the instant specification provides no clarity to the coupling.).
Regarding claim 3, Kociak et al. teach wherein at least a part of the lens is enclosed in the sheath (fig. 4, shows 316 enclosed in 314).
Regarding claim 4, Kociak et al. teach wherein a diameter of the lens is equal or less than an outer diameter of the elongated sheath (fig. 4 shows 316 having a diameter less than the outer diameter of 314).
Regarding claim 5, Kociak et al. teach wherein the light collection system is retractably inserted into the vacuum chamber via a flange of the vacuum chamber (via retracting collection optic 112 ([0152]) the system is retractably inserted into the vacuum chamber, via connection part 608. Alternatively, figure 6 shows connecting part 608, which hugs the vacuum chamber ([0155]), thus interpreted as a flange. Paragraph [0153] teaches 114 (i.e. including 316/314-see paragraph[0146]) and optical fiber can be arranged in a second cylinder removably inserted into the cylinder 602. Since the connection part, is the only part in which the collection device may be removed, it is interpreted removably (retracted) from connecting part 608 (i.e. flange)).
Regarding claim 8, Kociak et al. teach wherein the lens is optically coupled to the optical fiber includes that the lens is spaced from a distal end of the optical fiber (fig. 4, lens 316 spaced from 116), and the sheath has at least one opening fluidically connecting the vacuum chamber (opening holding window 312 and 316) and the space between the optical fiber and the lens (interior space of 314 between 316 and 116).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kociak et al. (US pgPub 2013/0087706) (second interpretation)
Regarding claim 1, Kociak et al. teach a light collection system (figs. 1, 112/114) for collecting light (ray entering 114 in figure 1) in response to a charged particle irradiation (in response to electron irradiation 104, see figure 1), the light collection system comprises:
an optical fiber (116, figures 3-4) with a first distal end (distal end of 116 facing ray trace in figure 4) end enclosed in an elongated sheath (314 enclosing distal end of 116 in figure 4); and
a lens (112) positioned at a first distal end of the light collection system (best seen in figure 6), wherein the lens is optically coupled to the optical fiber (112 coupled to 314 via elements seen in figures 3-4 and in figure 4 the ray trace suggests optically coupled) for directly collecting light emitted from a sample positioned in a vacuum chamber responsive to the charged particle irradiation (112 directly collects light emitted from the sample positioned in vacuum chamber 302 (see figs. 1 and 6) responsive to the CPB 104), and wherein the light collection system is retractably inserted into the vacuum chamber ([0152] teaches collection optic (i.e. 112) completely retracted, suggesting 112 and the entire system is retractably inserted).
Regarding claim 2, Kociak et al. teach wherein the lens is mechanically coupled to the elongated sheath (fig. 4, 112 is mechanically coupled to 314 via elements seen in figures 3-5).
Regarding claim 5, Kociak et al. teach wherein the light collection system is retractably inserted into the vacuum chamber via a flange of the vacuum chamber (via retracting collection optic 112 ([0152]) the system is retractably inserted into the vacuum chamber, via connection part 608) .
Regarding claim 8, Kociak et al. teach wherein the lens is optically coupled to the optical fiber includes that the lens is spaced from a distal end of the optical fiber (fig. 4, lens 112 spaced from 116), and the sheath has at least one opening fluidically connecting the vacuum chamber (opening holding window 312 and 316) and the space between the optical fiber and the lens (interior space of 314 between 316 and 116).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Correns et al. (US pgPub 2014/0339438) in view of Kociak et al..
Regarding claim 1, Correns teaches a light collection system (105) for collecting light in response to a charged particle irradiation ([0039]), the light collection system comprises:
an optical fiber (light pickup elements 202 in figure 2 are fiber optical units [0042] or in figure 3, see paragraph [0047] or see individual optical fibers in figure 4) with a first distal end enclosed in an elongated sheath ([0053] teaches light entry openings are anti- glare by a coating and paragraph [0054] teaches metallization of the surface of the optical fibers, thus entire surface is enclosed by a coating (i.e. sheath)); and
a lens positioned at a first distal end of the light collection system (figure 4, spherical optical unit 404 or prism 405, see paragraph [0051]), wherein the lens is optically coupled to the optical fiber for directly collecting light emitted from a sample positioned in a vacuum chamber responsive to the charged particle irradiation (as seen in figures 1-3, particularly figures 2-3 show rays collected by 202 and 302 respectively. Note system is in vacuum chamber 102 in figure 1, light entry spherical optical unit 404 or prism incorporated in the system of figures 2-3 would result in optically coupled lens to fiber).
Correns fails to disclose wherein the light collection system is retractably inserted into the vacuum chamber.
However, Kociak et al. teaches wherein the light collection system is retractably inserted into the vacuum chamber ([0152]).
Kociak et al. modifies Correns by suggesting retraction of the light collection system.
Since both devices are directed towards charged particle beam microscopes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Correns to have the retraction functionality of Kociak because it would facilitate removal of the light detection mechanism such that the microscope may be used in the standard way, without the interfering light detection system, therefore improving secondary/backscatter electron detection signal, when detection of cathodoluminescence is not desired.
Regarding claim 2, Correns teaches wherein the lens is mechanically coupled to the elongated sheath (prism 405 in figure 405 is inherently somehow coupled to optical fiber, [0051]).
Regarding claim 3, Kociak et al. teach wherein at least a part of the lens is enclosed in the sheath ([0051] teaches light entry openings 404/405 (spherical or prism) and paragraph [0053] teaches coating an antiglare on light entry openings, thus enclosed in sheath).
Regarding claim 4, Kociak et al. teach wherein a diameter of the lens is equal or less than an outer diameter of the elongated sheath (since 404 and 405 are light entry openings and coated with anti-glare, they have a smaller diameter than the coating).
Regarding claim 6, Correns teaches wherein the lens has a NA higher than 0.22 ([0051] between .22 and .44).
Relevant art of interest to the applicant:
Maazouz et al. (US pgPub 2019/0198288) an optical fiber 550 that receives light for detection from an elliptical mirror 510 which is movable (see figures 5 and 11-12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights