1DETAILED 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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the disclosure must provide support for computer system that can detect a feature of a transition metal in the same energy range as feature of an organic substance. Claim 8 recites “when … the feature of a transition metal is not detected in a third energy range, and the feature not indicating a transition metal is detected in the third energy range, the computer system determines whether the feature is a feature of an organic substance.” This requires both the feature of a transition metal and the feature not indicating a transition metal, which is later determined as being or not being an organic substance, be at the same energy range (the third energy range). The specification discloses determining a feature of a transition metal being determined based on the 853 eV energy peak of nickel and determining the feature of an organic substance based on the carbon 277eV energy peak. No disclosure of a method for determining a feature of a transition metal and determining a feature of an organic substance at the same energy.
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 limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder, such as device, 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first element analysis device” and “second element analysis device” in claim 1-16, “device configured to generate an X-ray from the target sample and the reference sample by irradiating each of the target sample and the reference sample with an electron beam” in claim 4, and “an irradiation unit configured to irradiate each of the target sample and the reference sample with an electron beam” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/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
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 1-14 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 1-14 recite a computer system configured to “analyze an element contained in the sample by using a result obtained by detecting an X-ray generated from the sample”. It is unclear what it means to analyze an element contained in the sample by using a result obtained by detecting an X-ray generated from the sample. It is unclear how the “result” is “used”, and it is further unclear what “result” is obtained “by detecting an X-ray generated from the sample,” given that the substeps include three different x-ray detecting steps with different “results” (acquiring first spectrum, acquiring second spectrum, and using a second element analysis device).
Claims 1-14 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 1-14 recite that the computer system “analyzes an element contained in the sample by using a second element analysis device”. It is unclear what it means to analyze an element contained in the sample by using the second element analysis device. It is not specified how the second analysis device is “used”, or even what the analysis is designed to determine. Examiner’s best guess is that applicant intends to claim configuring the computer to determine whether an element is present in the sample based whether the second analysis device detects a particular characteristic x-ray.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites “the second energy range is a range in which energy of the electron beam is 2 keV or more.” However, the parent claim, claim 3, defines the second energy range as a range of X-ray energies, not electron beam energies (see “multiplying a spectrum value of at least one of the first energy spectrum or the second energy spectrum by a coefficient so that a difference between the first energy spectrum and the second energy spectrum is less than a threshold in a second energy range different from the first energy range,”). It is unclear if applicant is intending to claim exciting the sample with an electron beam having energies of 2 keV or more, or that the second energy range used for matching X-ray spectra as claimed in claim 3 is 2 keV or more.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the computer system determining whether the feature of a transition metal is detected.
Claim 7 recites “wherein when the feature is not detected in the first energy range and the feature of a transition metal is detected in a third energy range”. Claim 8 recites “when the feature is not detected in the first energy range, the feature of a transition metal is not detected in a third energy range”. Both of these conditional statements cannot be fulfilled unless the computer determines whether the feature of a transition metal is detected.
The parent claim, claim 2, recites “wherein the computer system determines whether one or more features are present in a first energy range on the first energy spectrum or the second energy spectrum by comparing the first energy spectrum with the second energy spectrum,” but no claim recites determining a feature of a transition metal, or determining whether a feature is present based on a third energy range.
Claims 8-10 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 feature of a transition metal” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8-10 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 feature not indicating a transition metal” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There appears to be a second recitation of this feature in line 4 as “the feature”.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the computer system determining whether a feature not indicating a transition metal is detected.
Claim 8 recites “when … the feature not indicating a transition metal is detected”. This conditional statement cannot be fulfilled unless the computer determines whether a feature not indicating a transition metal is detected, but no claim recites determining whether a feature not indicating a transition metal is detected.
Claims 8-10 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 feature not indicating a transition metal is detected in the third energy range”. It is unclear what this means. The prior clause states that “the feature of a transition metal is not detected in a third energy range,” suggested that if a feature is detected in the third energy range that would indicate that a transition metal is present. It is unclear, therefore, how a “feature not indicating a transition metal” could also be detected in the third energy range, unless some criteria besides energy of the x-ray is used to differentiate two peaks at the same energy, something which is not suggested by either the claims or the disclosure. For the purposes of examination, examiner will simply ignore both recitations to the energy ranges and compare to prior art that detects “a feature of a transition metal” and also detects “a feature not indicating a transition”, whether or not they are detected at the same energy.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites an analysis method including “a step of analyzing an element contained in the sample by using a result obtained by detecting an X-ray generated from the sample”. It is unclear what it means to analyze an element contained in the sample by using a result obtained by detecting an X-ray generated from the sample. It is unclear how the “result” is “used”, and it is further unclear what “result” is obtained “by detecting an X-ray generated from the sample,” given that the substeps include three different detecting steps with different “results” (acquiring first spectrum, acquiring second spectrum, and using a second element analysis device).
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites an analysis method including “an element contained in the target sample is analyzed by using a second element analysis device”. It is unclear what it means to analyze an element contained in the sample by using a second element analysis device. It is not specified how the second analysis device is “used”, or even what the analysis is designed to determine. Examiner’s best guess is that applicant intends to claim a step of determining whether an element is present in the sample based on whether a particular characteristic x-ray is detected by the second analysis device.
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites a program causing a computer to execute “a step of analyzing an element contained in the sample by using a result obtained by detecting an X-ray generated from the sample”. It is unclear what it means to analyze an element contained in the sample by using a result obtained by detecting an X-ray generated from the sample. It is unclear how the “result” is “used”, and it is further unclear what “result” is obtained “by detecting an X-ray generated from the sample,” given that the substeps include three different detecting steps with different “results” (acquiring first spectrum, acquiring second spectrum, and using a second element analysis device).
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites a program causing a computer to execute “a step of analyzing an element contained in the target sample by using a second element analysis device”. It is unclear what it means to analyze an element contained in the sample by using a second element analysis device. It is not specified how the second analysis device is “used” or even what the analysis is designed to determine. Examiner’s best guess is that applicant intends to claim a step of determining whether an element is present in the sample based on whether a particular characteristic x-ray is detected by the second analysis device.
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) 1-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,407,386 (Dotan et al.) in view of US 2019/0006146 (Sakamae).
Regarding claim 1, Dotan et al. discloses an analysis system for analyzing an element contained in a sample, the analysis system comprising:
a computer system configured to analyze an element contained in the sample by using a result obtained by detecting an X-ray generated from the sample (fig. 2, element 180), wherein
the computer system acquires a first energy spectrum of a first X-ray generated from a target sample by using a first element analysis device (“acquiring the EDX spectrum of the defect;”),
the computer system acquires a second energy spectrum of a second X-ray generated from a reference sample by using the first element analysis device (“The system then acquires two spectra: one at the chosen defect location, and one at a clear location of the background material, e.g., the locations marked X' and Y'.”), and
the computer system obtains a result comparing the first energy spectrum with the second energy spectrum (“comparatively analyzing the defect and background spectra to yield a net defect spectrum”).
Dotan et al. does not disclose the computer system analyzes an element contained in the target sample by using a second element analysis device having higher energy resolution than the first element analysis device based on the result. Sakamae discloses an analysis system that analyzes an element contained in a target sample by using a second element analysis device having higher energy resolution than the first element analysis device based on analysis results of the first element analysis device (“Then, it is possible to acquire the second spectrum data only with respect to the representative pixel (the measurement position) in the measurement region corresponding to each of the phases of the phase distribution map by the wavelength dispersive X-ray spectrometer, and to acquire accurate element composition information of each of the phases (a high-accuracy element concentration value having a value of a trace element which is difficult to be detected by the energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer), on the basis of the second spectrum data.” P 14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the analysis system of Dotan et al. by configuring the computer to analyze the target sample using the second element analysis device as in Sakamae because this allows for higher accuracy measurement of targets of interest, without sacrificing speed, as only locations of interest, in the case of Dotan determined on the basis of difference spectrums, need to be examined using the higher resolution analysis device. This is similar to the reasoning discussed in Sakamae, though the areas of interest are determined differently (“According to the invention, it is possible to obtain the phase distribution map for a comparatively short period of time, on the basis of the first spectrum data acquired by the energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer with respect to each of the pixels (each of the measurement positions) in the measurement region on the sample surface, to acquire the second spectrum data in the representative position of each of the phases of the phase distribution map by using the wavelength dispersive spectrometer, and thus, to acquire accurate element composition information of each of the phases (a high-accuracy element concentration value having a value of a trace element which is difficult to be detected by the energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer).” P 28).
Regarding claim 2, Dotan et al. in view of Sakamae et al. discloses the analysis system according to claim 1, wherein
the computer system determines whether one or more features are present in a first energy range on the first energy spectrum or the second energy spectrum by comparing the first energy spectrum with the second energy spectrum (“The defect/background spectra ratios are 0.1 for O and 0.05 for Si, and therefore Si is designated as the non-present element (i.e., having the smaller ratio).”) and
the computer system analyzes an element contained in the target sample by using the second element analysis device when the feature is present, and does not perform analysis using the second element analysis when no feature is present (obvious for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1 above).
Regarding 3, Dotan et al. in view of Sakamae et al. discloses the analysis system according to claim 2, wherein
the computer system performs first matching processing of multiplying a spectrum value of at least one of the first energy spectrum or the second energy spectrum by a coefficient so that a difference between the first energy spectrum and the second energy spectrum is less than a threshold in a second energy range different from the first energy range (“The background spectrum is then normalized according to the non-present element Si net count number in the defect spectrum. In this numerical this example, the background spectrum is normalized to have 500 net counts in the Si line (i.e., the background spectrum count is divided by 20).”), and
the computer system determines whether the feature is present by comparing, in the first energy range, the first energy spectrum and the second energy spectrum subjected to the first matching processing (“The normalized background is then subtracted from the defect spectrum so that Si is removed from the defect spectrum, and O is adjusted correspondingly.”).
Regarding 4, Dotan et al. in view of Sakamae et al. discloses the analysis system according to claim 3, wherein
the first element analysis device is a device configured to generate an X-ray from the target sample and the reference sample by irradiating each of the target sample and the reference sample with an electron beam (“In examining a sample using the system exemplified in FIG. 1, the user directs the primary electron beam onto the detected defect and acquires the x-ray emission.”).
Dotan et al. is silent as to whether the second energy range is a range in which energy of the electron beam is 2 keV or more. It is very well known in the art to use electron beams having an energy of 2 keV or more, and further very well known in the art to detect x-rays with energies in the range of 2 keV or more. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use an electron beam having an energy of 2 keV or more to excite characteristic x-rays that require that level of energy for excitation is an element of interest had such a characteristic x-ray. It would further have been obvious to detect x-rays in such an energy range if an element of interest had such a characteristic x-ray.
Regarding 5, Dotan et al. in view of Sakamae et al. discloses the analysis system according to claim 2, wherein
the computer system performs second matching processing of multiplying a spectrum value of at least one of the first energy spectrum or the second energy spectrum by a coefficient so that a difference between a first peak of the first energy spectrum and a second peak of the second energy spectrum is less than a threshold in the first energy range (“The background spectrum is then normalized according to the non-present element Si net count number in the defect spectrum. In this numerical this example, the background spectrum is normalized to have 500 net counts in the Si line (i.e., the background spectrum count is divided by 20).”), and
the computer system determines whether the feature is present by comparing, in an energy range that does not coincide with either the first peak or the second peak, the first energy spectrum and the second energy spectrum subjected to the second matching processing (“The normalized background is then subtracted from the defect spectrum so that Si is removed from the defect spectrum, and O is adjusted correspondingly.”).
Regarding 6, Dotan et al. in view of Sakamae et al. discloses the analysis system according to claim 5, wherein the target sample and the reference sample are a silicon substrate, and the first peak and the second peak are a spectrum peak of at least one of a Kα line of oxygen or a Kα line of silicon (“The background spectrum is then normalized according to the non-present element Si net count number in the defect spectrum. In this numerical this example, the background spectrum is normalized to have 500 net counts in the Si line (i.e., the background spectrum count is divided by 20).”).
Regarding 7, Dotan et al. in view of Sakamae et al. discloses the analysis system according to claim 2, wherein when the feature is not detected in the first energy range and the feature of a transition metal is detected in a third energy range, the computer system analyzes an element of the transition metal by using the second element analysis device (if a transition metal is among the common elements listed in step 524 and found to be present, if would have been obvious to analyze an element of the transition metal by using the second element analysis device for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.)
Regarding 8, Dotan et al. in view of Sakamae et al. discloses the analysis system according to claim 2, wherein when the feature is not detected in the first energy range, the feature of a transition metal is not detected in a third energy range, and the feature not indicating a transition metal is detected in the third energy range, the computer system determines whether the feature is a feature of an organic substance (Dotan et al. will inherently do this, because Dotan classifies every element in the list obtained in step 524 as present or not present in the target sample based on the ratios determined in step 526, including carbon, and a feature is organic if carbon is present).
Regarding 9, Dotan et al. in view of Sakamae et al. discloses the analysis system according to claim 8, wherein the computer system detects, as the feature in the third energy range, a difference between the first energy spectrum and the second energy spectrum in the third energy range and the computer system determines that the difference is a feature of an organic substance when the difference is equal to or greater than a threshold, and determines that the difference is a feature of an inorganic substance when the difference is less than the threshold (If the third energy range is chosen to include the carbon peak the presence or absence of said carbon peak will inherently determine whether the feature is an organic substance. Dotan et al. determines whether an element is present whenever the ratio of counts of x-rays at the relevant energy in the defect spectrum as compared to the background spectrum is high enough, i.e. it exceeds a threshold, often set by Dotan as the smallest ratio of common elements).
Regarding 10, Dotan et al. in view of Sakamae et al. discloses the analysis system according to claim 8, further comprising: an irradiation unit configured to irradiate each of the target sample and the reference sample with an electron beam (fig. 2, element 100), and the computer system compares the first energy spectrum with the second energy spectrum, which are obtained by emitting the electron beam at an acceleration voltage, to determine whether a feature in the third energy range is a present (“The defect/background spectra ratios are 0.1 for O and 0.05 for Si, and therefore Si is designated as the non-present element (i.e., having the smaller ratio).”).
Dotan et al. does not specifically disclose determining whether a feature in the third energy range is a feature of an organic substance, but if the third energy range is chosen to include the carbon peak the presence or absence of said carbon peak will inherently determine whether the feature is an organic substance.
Dotan et al. is silent as to whether the acceleration voltage is 1kV or less. Electron beams can easily be emitted by the system of Dotan et al. at an acceleration voltage of 1kV or less, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to set the acceleration voltage at 1kV or less to ensure the electron beam does not penetrate too deeply into the sample, which can increase noise for deeper elements. The particular value of 1kV does not appear to have any significance beyond the fact that it is significantly higher than the minimal amount of energy needed to excite the carbon alpha line.
Regarding 11, Dotan et al. in view of Sakamae et al. discloses the analysis system according to claim 1, wherein after the first energy spectrum is acquired and before the second energy spectrum is acquired, the computer system determines whether a feature of a trace element is present in the first energy spectrum (fig. 5, step 510).
Dotan et al. does not disclose that when a feature of a trace element is present in the first energy spectrum, the computer system analyzes an element contained in the target sample by using the second element analysis device without acquiring the second energy spectrum. Sakamae et al. discloses analyzing an element contained in the target sample by using the second element analysis device (“A WDS 6 acquires second spectrum data by detecting the X-ray generated from the sample.” abstract) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the apparatus of Dotan et al. to perform the higher resolution analysis using the second element analysis device as in Sakame et a. without without acquiring a reference spectrum when a trace element is found because these elements are clearly indicative of foreign particles, as disclosed in Dotan et al. (“Accordingly, in the trace element analysis the system analyzes the x-ray spectra obtained and, if an element that under no circumstances should be present on a wafer is noted, such as iron for example, the system immediately issues an alarm that a foreign particle has been introduced. This helps focus the yield engineer to investigate problems relating to the equipment and not the process.”).
Dotan et al. does not specify whether the trace element is a transition metal. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to perform trace analysis searching for a feature of a transition metal if transition metals are not expected to be part of the sample.
Regarding 12, Dotan et al. in view of Sakamae et al. discloses the analysis system according to claim 11, wherein when a feature of a transition metal is not present in the first energy spectrum, the computer system further determines whether a feature of an organic substance or an inorganic substance is present (Dotan et al. will inherently do this, because Dotan classifies every element in the list obtained in step 524 as present or not present in the target sample based on the ratios determined in step 526, including carbon, and a feature is organic if carbon is present and inorganic if carbon is not present).
Dotan et al. in view of Sakamae does not disclose whether, when a feature of an inorganic substance is detected in the first energy spectrum, the computer system analyzes an element contained in the target sample by using the second element analysis device. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Dotan et al. in view of Sakamae to include analyzing an element contained in the target sample by using the second element analysis device when a feature of an inorganic substance is detected in the first energy spectrum if an inorganic feature is of interest.
Regarding 13, Dotan et al. in view of Sakamae et al. discloses the analysis system according to claim 1, wherein the computer system provides a user interface that presents at least any one of the first energy spectrum, the second energy spectrum, and an observation image of the sample (fig. 2, element 185).
Regarding claims 15 & 16, see analysis with respect to claim 1.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotan et al. in view of Sakamae et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0231259 (Tanaka et al.).
Regarding 14, Dotan et al. in view of Sakamae et al. discloses the analysis system according to claim 1, wherein the first element analysis device is an energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy device (fig. 2, element 160).
Dotan in view of Sakamae does not disclose the second element analysis device is an X-ray analysis device using a superconducting transition edge sensor. Takada discloses an analysis system including an x-ray analysis device using a superconducting transition edge sensor (“The present invention relates to an X-ray analyzer provided with a radiation detector including a superconducting transition edge sensor.” P 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute the TES detector of Takada et al. for the WDS detector of Sakamae because it has a similar energy resolution but is energy dispersive, which increases throughput, as discussed in Takada et al. (“Recently, an energy dispersive superconducting X-ray detector having the same energy resolution as the WDS has been attracting attention.” P 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights