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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “the frequency”, which Examiner believes should read ‘the frequency output’, as no particular frequency in particular was previously recited;
Claim 7 recites “…a movement mechanism configured to move the crystal resonator close to the sample stage…”, in which “close to” recites a term of degree that is not defined by the claim; However, in context, and in view of the specification (without reading in any specific limitations), “close to” is believed to indicate ‘closer to’, i.e., opposite of ‘away from’; Accordingly Examiner believes the limitation should read ‘…a movement mechanism configured to move the crystal resonator closer to the sample stage…’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4-6 and 9 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.
Claims 4, 5, and 9 each recite method steps in some form, however, the claims are directed toward a device. See MPEP 2173.05(p).II. It is unclear how such method steps can limit an instrument itself, other than by limiting physical capabilities/functionality thereof. However, the method steps recited do not further limit the instrument itself, but rather its use. Accordingly, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claims, rendering them indefinite. For purposes of examination, these claim limitations are interpreted as requiring only the physical elements of the instrument, any required relative positioning to achieve the claimed method steps, and any required physical capabilities of the elements necessary to achieve the method steps claimed. See specific adopted interpretations in claim mapping.
Claim 4 recites “…when the sample is placed on the sample stage…”, however, there is no requirement previously in the claims that the sample actually be placed on the stage at any point. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the following limitations are required by the claim. Additionally, because the claim is directed toward a device, as discussed above, it is unclear if this claim is intended to place capabilities of the system as being conditional on the disposal of a sample. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘in response to the sample being placed on the sample stage, the control unit is configured to…’.
Claim 5 recites “…during processing on the sample…”, however, processing is not required to be performed at any point previously in the claims. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…during operation, the ion milling device is configured to process the sample, wherein the ion milling device is configured to…’.
Claim 6 recites “the emission of the ion beam”, however the claims do not previously require actual emission, or any particular emission. Additionally, it appears that this limitation is directed toward a general capability during general emission of the ion beam. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘emission of the ion beam’.
Claim 9 recites “the inclined angle of the crystal resonator is changed following a change in the inclined angle of the sample stage.” It is unclear what is required by ‘is changed following a change’. This could reasonably be interpreted as a temporal limitation or as correspondence limitation or a causal limitation, each of which requires a different scope. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘the inclined angle of the crystal resonator is changed according to a change in the inclined angle of the sample stage.’.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20070045228 A1) in view of Karasawa (JPO Doc. No. JP H059727 A).
Examiner notes that Kubota and Karasawa are Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 10/14/2025, and notes that the PGPub of Kubota (rather than the provided patent) was merely used for ease of citation.
Regarding claim 1, Kubota teaches an ion milling device (See Fig. 1, item 10; Abstract; [0004]) comprising:
an ion source configured to emit an ion beam (See Figs. 1-2, source 14, beam 26, 26a; [0028]);
a sample stage configured to allow a sample to be placed thereon (See Figs. 1-2, stage 20 with sample 22 or stage 62 with sample 60; [0028]; [0031]-[0033]; [0038]; [0041]-[0042]);
a first inclining mechanism connected to the sample stage and configured to adjust an inclined angle of the sample stage (See Fig. 2, inclining mechanism 62; [0038]);
a crystal resonator (See Fig. 2, item 70; [0036]-[0037]);
an oscillation circuit electrically connected to the crystal resonator and configured to vibrate the crystal resonator and receive a frequency output from the crystal resonator (See Fig. 2, item 70, and in particular 74, which measures the resonant frequency changes as disclosed in: [0036]-[0037]; Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand such a sensor to measure the resonant frequency by sending vibrations and measuring the response thereof);
Kubota does not teach a second inclining mechanism connected to the crystal resonator and configured to adjust an inclined angle of the crystal resonator and does not explicitly teach a control unit electrically connected to the ion source, the first inclining mechanism, the oscillation circuit, and the second inclining mechanism and configured to control operations of the ion source, the first inclining mechanism, the oscillation circuit, and the second inclining mechanism.
However, Kubota discloses performing control operations of the ion source, the first inclining mechanism, and oscillation circuit, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Kubota to require a control element of some form to control the disclosed control operations of the various elements, and thus it is Examiner’s opinion that Kubota implicitly discloses a control unit electrically connected to the ion source, the first inclining mechanism, the oscillation circuit… and explicitly discloses configured to control operations of the ion source, the first inclining mechanism, the oscillation circuit… in the above cited portions for these elements.
Karasawa teaches a[n] inclining mechanism connected to the crystal resonator and configured to adjust an inclined angle of the crystal resonator (See Figs. 1-4, crystal resonator 11, angle changed, including by item 13; [0003]-[0011]).
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 Kubota to include a[n] inclining mechanism connected to the crystal resonator and configured to adjust an inclined angle of the crystal resonator, as taught by Karasawa, in order to reach a second inclining mechanism connected to the crystal resonator and configured to adjust an inclined angle of the crystal resonator and a control unit electrically connected to the ion source, the first inclining mechanism, the oscillation circuit, and the second inclining mechanism and configured to control operations of the ion source, the first inclining mechanism, the oscillation circuit, and the second inclining mechanism (Emphasis added by Examiner), by the combination.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as each of the elements are taught, and could be readily combined with predictable results, that would allow one, as taught by Karasawa, to better receive the sputtered material (see [0009]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 2, Kubota in view of Karasawa teaches the ion milling device according to claim 1.
Kubota in view of Karasawa further teaches wherein
the first inclining mechanism and the second inclining mechanism are configured to rotate around a direction perpendicular to a central axis of the ion beam as a rotation axis (Kubota: See Fig. 2, rotation angle θ of sample 60 via inclining mechanism 62, which extends around axis that is perpendicular to central axis of the ion beam, 60 rotates around the axis, as shown; Karasawa: See Figs. 1-4, crystal resonator 11, angle changed relative to axis perpendicular to beam in each; [0003]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 3, Kubota in view of Karasawa teaches the ion milling device according to claim 2.
Kubota in view of Karasawa further teaches wherein
a rotation axis of the first inclining mechanism and a rotation axis of the second inclining mechanism are coaxial (Kubota: See Fig. 2, rotation angle θ of sample 60 via inclining mechanism 62, which extends around axis that is perpendicular to central axis of the ion beam, 60 rotates around the axis, as shown; Karasawa: See Figs. 1-4, crystal resonator 11, angle changed relative to axis perpendicular to beam in each; [0003]-[0011]; Examiner notes that the rotation axis is the same in both arrangements).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kubota in view of Karasawa teaches the ion milling device according to claim 1.
Kubota in view of Karasawa further teaches wherein
when the sample is placed on the sample stage, the control unit adjusts the inclined angle of the crystal resonator by the second inclining mechanism such that the crystal resonator is located on a perpendicular line perpendicular to a surface of the sample (Interpreted as requiring the device be capable of adjusting the inclined angle of the crystal resonator by the second inclining mechanism such that the crystal resonator is located on a perpendicular line perpendicular to a surface of the sample: Karasawa: See Figs. 1-4, crystal resonator 11, angle changed to be on a line perpendicular to a surface of the sample; [0003]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kubota in view of Karasawa teaches the ion milling device according to claim 4.
Kubota in view of Karasawa further teaches wherein
during processing on the sample, the ion beam is emitted from the ion source to the sample, sputtering particles are generated from the sample, a part of the generated sputtering particles adheres to the crystal resonator, the frequency output from the crystal resonator to the oscillation circuit changes depending on an amount of the sputtering particles adhered to the crystal resonator, and when the frequency reaches a target value frequency, the control unit controls the ion source to stop emission of the ion beam (Interpreted as requiring the device be capable of emitting the ion beam from the ion source to the sample, thereby generating sputtering particles from the sample, wherein the device is configured such that a part of the generated sputtering particles adhere to the crystal resonator, wherein the crystal resonator is configured to change the frequency output to the oscillation circuit depending on an amount of the sputtering particles adhered to the crystal resonator, and wherein the control unit is configure to stop emission of the ion beam in response to the frequency output reaching a target value frequency; Kubota: Abstract; [0004]; [0028]-[0037]; Examiner notes that the majority of these limitations merely indicate typical operation of a crystal resonator, and stopping after a desired point is disclosed in [0030]).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kubota in view of Karasawa teaches the ion milling device according to claim 5.
Kubota in view of Karasawa further teaches wherein
the control unit is configured to change the inclined angle of the crystal resonator by the second inclining mechanism according to a change in the frequency output from the crystal resonator to the oscillation circuit during the emission of the ion beam (Karasawa: [0009]-[0011]; Karasawa discloses changing the angle in order to achieve more deposition, which is determined by the measurement output of the resonator; Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of such functional limitations in a device claim are a device capable of performing the function, which is satisfied by Karasawa).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kubota in view of Karasawa teaches the ion milling device according to claim 1.
Kubota in view of Karasawa further teaches wherein
a movement mechanism configured to move the crystal resonator close to the sample stage or move the crystal resonator away from the sample stage is connected to the crystal resonator (Karasawa: See Figs. 1-4, item 13 moving the resonator 11 closer and further from sample; Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of such functional limitations in a device claim are a device capable of performing the function, which is satisfied by Karasawa), and
Kubota in view of Karasawa does not explicitly teach the control unit is electrically connected to the movement mechanism and is configured to control an operation of the movement mechanism.
However, as discussed in regards to claim 1, Kubota and Karasawa disclose performing control operations of the ion source, the first inclining mechanism, and the oscillation circuit, and the second inclining mechanism, respectively, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Kubota and Karasawa to require a control element of some form to control the disclosed control operations of the various elements, and thus it is Examiner’s opinion that Kubota and Karasawa implicitly disclose the control unit is electrically connected to the movement mechanism and explicitly discloses configured to control an operation of the movement mechanism in the above cited portions for these elements.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kubota in view of Karasawa teaches the ion milling device according to claim 7.
Kubota in view of Karasawa further teaches wherein
the control unit is configured to change a distance between the crystal resonator and the sample stage by the movement mechanism according to a change in the frequency output from the crystal resonator to the oscillation circuit during emission of the ion beam (Karasawa: See Figs. 1-4, item 13 moving the resonator 11 to a different difference from the sample; Karasawa discloses changing the angle (via the shown position change) in order to achieve more deposition, which is determined by the measurement output of the resonator; Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of such functional limitations in a device claim are a device capable of performing the function, which is satisfied by Karasawa).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kubota in view of Karasawa teaches the ion milling device according to claim 1.
Kubota in view of Karasawa does not teach wherein the first inclining mechanism and the second inclining mechanism are integrated, and the inclined angle of the crystal resonator is changed following a change in the inclined angle of the sample stage.
However, Kubota in view of Karasawa discloses the claimed invention except for the inclining mechanisms being integrated.
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 Kubota in view of Karasawa to include wherein the first inclining mechanism and the second inclining mechanism are integrated, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v: Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. a64 (1893). Furthermore, the following limitation the inclined angle of the crystal resonator is changed following a change in the inclined angle of the sample stage is presently understood as merely describing what naturally occurs when the integrated device is rotated, as the inclining mechanisms are required to be integrated, so moving one would necessarily move the other accordingly, and thus does not provide a further structural limitation, and would be inherently disclosed by the limitations of claim 1 combined with wherein the first inclining mechanism and the second inclining mechanism are integrated wherein the first inclining mechanism and the second inclining mechanism are integrated. Accordingly, the required limitations are rendered obvious by Kubota and Karasawa as modified.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 H 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights