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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. MPEP 606.01 guides that a descriptive title may result in slightly longer title, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Each element should be listed by indented lines. 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i)
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, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hidemi (JP 20000251820, submitted in IDS of 08/15/2024).
Hidemi shows a probe device:
A probe for use with a sample chamber, the probe comprising
a probing element (Para. [0010]: "probe 4") mounted on an arm ("probe holder 5"), the arm insertable or inserted into the sample chamber to locate the probing element within the sample chamber ("vacuum changer 1"),
a drive mechanism (triaxial moving mechanism 7a, 7b; axis shaft moving mechanism 10) for moving the arm, wherein movement of the arm causes movement of the probing element within the sample chamber, and
a drive control system (probe position controller 82a, 82b) for limiting movement of the arm to a specified range, the drive control system programmable to adjust the specified range.
7. A probe according to claim 1, wherein the drive mechanism is arranged to move the arm in orthogonal directions using linear translation stages (Para. [0011]: "triaxial moving mechanism 7a, 7b, 7c") and the drive control system is programmable with limits of movement for each translation stage (It would be inherent that the controller would be programmed to not move the probe to outside the chamber or else risk damaging the equipment. The controller, having a computer processor, would be reprogrammable. The term "programmable" does not require that the drive control system be reprogrammed).
8. A method of mounting a probe according to claim 1 to an electron microscope, the method comprising programming the specified range based on an internal geometry of a sample chamber of the electron microscope (the term "based on" is not specific as to how it is based on the internal geometry and thus only requires a relationship. It would be inherent that the controller would be programmed to not move the probe to outside the chamber or else risk damaging the equipment. The controller, having a computer processor, would be reprogrammable).
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) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidemi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bacchi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,852,413).
Hidemi shows all the elements of the claimed probe as discussed above for claim 1 but does not show that the drive mechanism is an absolute position encoder.
Bacchi shows an absolute position encoder and teaches the encoder has an application for use in positioning a specimen under a microscope.
For claims 2 and 3, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the absolute encoder of Bacchi in the electron microscope of Hidemi in order to know the absolute position of the probe with high resolution
4. A probe according to claim 2, wherein the drive control system limits an extent of movement of the arm based on the specified range and position measurements generated by the encoders (the controller limits the movement. See also column 7, lines 10-14: "In addition, scanner controller 102 delivers an alignment feedback signal to motor drive controller 104, which responds by delivering an X-axis control signal to X-axis substage drive motor")..
5. A probe according to claim 2, wherein the drive control system is arranged to control the drive mechanism to map the sample based on feedback from the encoder (column 7, lines 10-14: "In addition, scanner controller 102 delivers an alignment feedback signal to motor drive controller 104, which responds by delivering an X-axis control signal to X-axis substage drive motor").
6. A probe according to claim 2, wherein the drive control system is arranged to stop further movement of the drive mechanism in a direction if the position measured by the corresponding encoder corresponds to a limit of the specified range. (Hidemi and Bacchi do not show that the controller stops the drive mechanism if the measured position is outside the specified range. Official notice is taken that measuring and controlling the position of a probe to stay within a range was well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to monitor the position of the probe so that the probe stays within a desired range of motion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 2007/0051884 to Romanov et al show an absolute encoder used to sense the position of a probe in a microscope.
PNG
media_image1.png
228
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877