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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 09/18/2024 was entered. Claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 09/18/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 requires an EDS first analyzer, a TES second analyzer, and a conditional two-stage flow in which the EDS result is used to determine whether the sample contains a transition metal element and only then the TES result is obtained and used to analyze the elemental species.
This argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on Rohde or Briant as teaching TES. Rather, Rohde teaches the EDS-first candidate-element detection and second-analyzer verification workflow, Rohde [0012]-[0015]. Briant confirms that combined SEM EDS/higher-resolution spectrometer analysis was known and useful for quicker analysis, improved resolution, trace elements, overlapping spectral lines, and transition-metal-containing samples, Briant, pp. 37-41, Figs. 1-6, Tables 1-7. Briant_Balloy_Combined_WDS_EDS_SEM_2008.pdf Takano then teaches TES as a known high-resolution X-ray analyzer that separates characteristic X-ray peaks that a semiconductor detector cannot separate, Takano [0005]-[0007].
Applicant’s argument that Rohde’s second device is WDS rather than TES is acknowledged but does not overcome the rejection. The rejection uses Rohde for the coordinated analysis architecture and conditional EDS-to-second-analyzer workflow, uses Briant for the known utility of combined SEM EDS/higher-resolution analysis and transition-metal-containing examples, and uses Takano for the TES analyzer. The proposed modification is not that WDS and TES are identical. The proposed modification is using Takano’s TES as the known high-resolution X-ray analyzer in the second-analyzer role taught by Rohde and supported by Briant.
Applicant’s argument that the cited references merely disclose a combination of two analytical instruments is not persuasive. Rohde does more than disclose two instruments. Rohde teaches that EDS spectrum 50 identifies candidate elements, Rohde [0012], that WDS intensity readings are collected for selected candidate elements, Rohde [0013]-[0014], and that WDS readings verify candidate elements identified from EDS spectra and eliminate candidates not actually present, Rohde [0015]. Rohde further teaches automated or semi-automated performance of the identifying, optimizing, and verifying functions by software and/or hardware, Rohde [0022].
Applicant’s argument is also not persuasive as to the “transition metal element” limitation. Rohde teaches using EDS spectrum 50 to identify candidate elements and identifies Fe as an example of an element measurable by the second analyzer, Rohde [0012], [0017] (Fe is a transition-metal element). Briant further confirms that combined SEM WDS/EDS analysis was used for samples containing transition-metal elements, including Fe, Ni, Cu, and W, Briant, pp. 39-41, Tables 1-7.
Therefore, the amendment incorporating former claim 8 into independent claims 1 and 11-15 does not overcome the rejection when the references are read for their actual roles in the combination.
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 9 – 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohde et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0027748 A1) in view of Briant et al. (Combined analysis with WDS/EDS spectrometers in SEM; Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 44, 37-42 (2008)) and Takano et al. (US 2022/0035053 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Rohde teaches “an analysis system for analyzing an element contained in a sample” by disclosing an X-ray spectrometry arrangement in which energy beam 10 is directed to a target location on sample 30, X-rays emitted from sample 30 are detected by energy-dispersive spectral collector 45 including EDS detector 40, and X-rays emitted from sample 30 are also detected by wavelength-dispersive spectral collector 65 including collection optic 90, diffractor 60, and detector 70, with EDS spectrum 50 and WDS spectrum 80 being generated, Rohde [0009], [0011], Fig. 1.
Rohde teaches “a first element analysis device detecting a first X-ray generated from the sample” because Rohde’s energy-dispersive spectral collector 45 includes EDS detector 40 arranged to receive X-rays emitted from sample 30 and obtain EDS spectrum 50 from the target location on sample 30, Rohde [0011]-[0012], Fig. 1.
Rohde teaches “a second element analysis device detecting a second X-ray generated from the sample” because Rohde’s wavelength-dispersive spectral collector 65 includes collection optic 90, diffractor 60, and WDS detector 70 arranged to receive X-rays emitted from sample 30 and obtain WDS intensity readings/spectrum 80 from the target location on sample 30, Rohde [0011], [0013]-[0014], Fig. 1.
Rohde teaches “the second element analysis device has higher X-ray energy resolution than the first element analysis device” because Rohde’s second analyzer is a WDS spectral collector and the first analyzer is an EDS spectral collector, Rohde [0002], [0009], [0011], Fig. 1 (WDS is disclosed as the higher-resolution wavelength-dispersive analysis path relative to the EDS spectral collector).
Rohde teaches “the computer system determines whether the sample contains a transition metal element by using the result obtained by the first element analysis device detecting the first X-ray” because Rohde teaches that EDS spectrum 50 is obtained from sample 30 and used to identify candidate elements that may be present at the target location by comparison to reference spectra or by deconvolution, Rohde [0012] (that is, Rohde uses the first EDS X-ray result to determine whether an element is present). Rohde further teaches that the candidate element identified from the EDS spectrum may be an element measurable by the second analyzer and gives Fe as an example of such an element, Rohde [0017] (Fe is a transition-metal element; therefore, Rohde’s EDS candidate-element determination reads on determining whether the sample contains a transition metal element when the EDS-identified candidate element is Fe).
Rohde teaches “when the transition metal element is detected, the computer system analyzes an element species of the transition metal element by acquiring the result obtained by the second element analysis device detecting the second X-ray” because Rohde teaches using the candidate elements identified from EDS spectrum 50 to tune wavelength-dispersive spectral collector 65 to obtain intensity readings for selected candidate elements, Rohde [0013]. Rohde further teaches optimizing collection time by taking intensity readings only at wavelengths/energies where EDS spectrum 50 indicates that a candidate element is possibly present, Rohde [0014] (that is, the second-stage analysis is performed based on the first EDS detection result). Rohde also teaches using the WDS intensity readings to verify candidate elements identified from measured EDS spectra and to eliminate candidate elements that are not actually present, Rohde [0015].
Rohde teaches that the computer system performs the determining and analyzing functions because Rohde teaches that the identifying, optimizing, and verifying functions may be performed in automated or semi-automated form by software and/or hardware elements provided with the spectrometer components, Rohde [0022].
Rohde, however, does not expressly teach that “the first element analysis device is an energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy device, and the second element analysis device is an X-ray analysis device using a superconducting transition edge sensor,” because Rohde’s second element analysis device is a WDS analyzer rather than a TES analyzer.
Briant relates to combined analysis with WDS/EDS spectrometers in SEM (Abstract). Briant supplies a transition metal candidate context (i.e., Ni/Cu/Zn overlap) used for that determination and also supplies the species separation example for overlapping transition metal L-lines. See Figure 3 below, wherein a comparison between spectra recorded with EDS (dashed line) and WDS (continued line) spectrometers. Lα lines of Ni, Cu and Zn (i.e., transition metals) can been observed with WDS spectrometers (i.e., separating element species of overlapping peaks) (i.e., see 2 Experimental set-ups; Pages 38 - 39) (4 Conclusion; page 42) (Figure 3).
Briant teaches the known utility of combining EDS with a higher-resolution spectrometer in SEM analysis. Briant teaches that WDS and EDS spectrometers were fitted on a scanning electron microscope to perform combined analysis and to use the advantages of both spectrometers. Briant further teaches that the combined system provides quicker analysis and better resolution than EDS alone, and that WDS provides better resolution and lower detection limit than EDS, Briant, p. 37, Abstract; p. 38, Experimental set-up, Figs. 1-3.
Briant further teaches that combined WDS/EDS SEM analysis is useful for trace elements and overlapping spectral lines, while EDS is useful for quicker and simpler analysis, Briant, p. 38, Fig. 3. Briant’s studied elements include Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn, and W, including transition-metal elements such as Fe, Ni, Cu, and W, Briant, pp. 39-41, Tables 1-7.
PNG
media_image1.png
303
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Takano teaches the missing TES analyzer. Takano teaches a radiation analyzer including a radiation detector implemented by a transition edge sensor, Takano [0001]. Takano teaches that energy-dispersive superconducting X-ray detectors having energy resolution comparable to WDS were known and that a detector implemented by a transition edge sensor, TES, is a highly sensitive calorimeter, Takano [0005]. Takano teaches that TES analyzes a sample by detecting fluorescent X-rays or characteristic X-rays generated from the sample by irradiation with primary X-rays or primary electron beams and that TES has higher energy resolution than a semiconductor detector, Takano [0006]. Takano further teaches that when TES is attached to an electron microscope, peaks of characteristic X-rays that cannot be separated by a semiconductor detector can be easily separated by TES, Takano [0007]. Takano also teaches a radiation analyzer 100 including TES 1, current detection mechanism 4, pulse height analyzer 5, and spectrum display unit 7, Takano [0031]-[0032].
In view of the utility of TES high-resolution X-ray analysis for separating characteristic X-ray peaks that are difficult for semiconductor EDS detectors to separate, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Rohde’s coordinated EDS and second higher-resolution X-ray analyzer system, as further supported by Briant’s combined SEM EDS/WDS transition-metal analysis teaching, to use Takano’s TES X-ray analyzer as the second element analysis device, thereby predictably improving second-stage analysis of transition-metal characteristic X-ray peaks while preserving Rohde’s EDS-first candidate detection and second-analyzer verification workflow.
With regards to claim 4, Rohde discloses the computer system acquires the first energy spectrum of the first X-ray generated from the sample by using the first element analysis device [0012] [0022]. Notice how the computer system determines whether a feature of the transition metal element is present in the first energy spectrum [0005], [0012], [0022], and
Rohde fails to expressly disclose that the computer system analyzes an element contained in the sample using the second element analysis device (i.e., as defined in claim 1) when a feature of the transition metal element is present in the first energy spectrum.
Briant relates to combined analysis with WDS/EDS spectrometers in SEM (Abstract). Briant supplies a transition metal candidate context (i.e., Ni/Cu/Zn overlap) used for that determination and also supplies the species separation example for overlapping transition metal L-lines. See Figure 3 below, wherein a comparison between spectra recorded with EDS (dashed line) and WDS (continued line) spectrometers. Thus, Briant supplies the transition metal and using the higher resolution verification (i.e., see 2 Experimental set-ups; Pages 38 - 39) (4 Conclusion; page 42) (Figure 3).
In view of the utility, that combined WDS and EDS on an SEM gives better accuracy, better resolution and less overlap of lines, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art at the time the invention was made to modify Rohde to include the teachings such as that taught by Briant.
With regards to claim 9, Rohde discloses wherein the computer system provides a user interface that presents at least any one of an energy spectrum 50/80 of the first X-ray, an energy spectrum 50/80 of the second X-ray, and an observation image 50/80 of the sample [0004], [0005], [0021] (Figure 1).
With regards to claim 10, Rohde modified discloses the first element analysis device and the second element analysis device [0011] (Figure 1) (Claim 19). Also see the rejection of claim 1 where Briant specifically expresses combining two spectrometers (Briant; abstract).
With regards to claim 11, see the rejection of claim 1. Claim 11 claims a method-form mirror of claim 1, wherein the same staged first spectrum/second spectrum teachings applies when expressed as method steps.
With regards to claim 12, see the rejection of claim 1 as claim 12 is a program form mirror of claim 1. Rohde also teaches that the function can be implemented in an automated or semi-automated software/hardware [0022].
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohde et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0027748 A1), Briant et al. (Combined analysis with WDS/EDS spectrometers in SEM; Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 44, 37-42 (2008)) and Takano et al. (US 2022/0035053 A1) in view of Mizuno (US Patent 6,072,178).
With regards to claim 2, Rohde modified discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1, in addition to discloses images of a target location from backscattered or secondary electrons in conjunction with spectral analysis [0004] (Figure 1).
Rohde also teaches that candidate elements can optimize the position of the wavelength dispersive spectral collector 65 with respect to the target location on the sample 30, such that the wavelength dispersive spectral collector 65 is better aligned to obtain high-quality intensity measurements--e.g., to collect the maximum amount of emitted photons--from the target location [0013].
Lastly Rohde teaches collection at the wavelengths/energies of the candidate elements which are deemed most likely to be present during analysis of the EDS spectrum 50. Data quality--i.e., the number of detected counts, and thus spectral resolution--is enhanced by "hunting" for the collector 65/sample 30 alignment which generates the highest intensity reading for a candidate element, and then taking WDS intensity readings once alignment has been optimized [0014], [0015].
Rohde fails to expressly disclose an irradiation unit configured to irradiate the sample with an electron beam, wherein the computer system specifies a position on the sample, at which the second element analysis device analyzes the transition metal element, by using a result of detecting a secondary particle obtained from the sample by irradiating the sample with the electron beam.
Mizuno relates to a sample analyzing apparatus and more particularly to such a sample analyzing apparatus as a scanning electron microscope (referred to as "SEM") equipped with energy diffusion type X-ray analyzer (referred to as "EDX") and a laser mass spectrometer (Col. 1, Lines 5 – 9) (Abstract).
Mizuno discloses a SEM with Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy analysis capability as a sample analyzing apparatus including a beam 2 emitted from an electron gun 1 focused by a condenser lens 3 and an objective lens 4 so as to form a focal point on a plane of a wafer 5 which is a sample. Notice how the wafer may be irradiated by the electron beam 2 to emit secondary electrons 7 and characteristic X-ray 14. The secondary electrons 7 are detected by a secondary electron detector 8, converted to electric signals (i.e., see claim 17 and steps (8) – (13), Col. 2, Line 10 to Col. 3, Line 35).
Lastly, Mizuno teaches that when a wafer map is indicated, an operator specifies a particle to be analyzed from particles shown on the wafer map 7. If the particle to be analyzed is specified, the wafer 5 to be measured is carried by the stage so that the specified particle is just below the electron beam (8). After that, scanning electron beam is irradiated over the specified particle so as to form the SEM image. The SEM image is compared to the reference SEM image preliminarily registered corresponding to the specified analysis point like in the alignment operation, and then precision positioning of the specified particle is carried out so that that SEM image overlaps the reference SEM image 9 (i.e., see claim 17 and steps (8) – (13), Col. 2, Line 10 to Col. 3, Line 35).
In view of the utility, to combine the core dual analysis system with known sensory positioning parts working with secondary electron imaging to direct the follow up high resolution analysis to correct particle or defect as needed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art at the time the invention was made to modify Rohde to include the teachings such as that taught by Mizuno.
With regards to claim 3, Rohde modified discloses the claimed invention according to claim 2, but fails to expressly disclose that the sample is a semiconductor substrate, the computer system acquires a position of a microparticle adhering to the semiconductor substrate or a position of a defect on the semiconductor substrate by using the result of detecting the secondary particle, and the computer system specifies the position on the sample, at which the second element analysis device analyzes the transition metal element, based on the acquired position of the microparticle or the acquired position of the defect.
Mizuno teaches a sample analyzing apparatus wherein the sample 5 is semiconductor substrate/wafer 5 (Col 4, Line 62) and a defect (Col. 4, Line 60). Mizuno also teaches that although a patterned wafer is considered as an observation object here, it is also possible to analyze a particle adhering to a bare wafer (Col. 4, Lines 46 – Line 65). Mizuno expressly states that irradiating the wafer by the electron beam 2 emits secondary electrons 7 and characteristic X-ray 14. The secondary electrons 7 are detected by a secondary electron detector 8, converted to electric signals and subjected to amplification or the like (Col. 1, Lines 19 – 25). Lastly, Mizuno teaches that after alignment is carried out, a wafer map preliminarily registered corresponding to this wafer is read and indicated on the display (6). The wafer map indicates a position and size of the particle existing on this wafer. After the wafer map is indicated, an operator specifies a particle to be analyzed from particles shown on the wafer map (Col. 2, Line 63 to Col. 3, Line 28).
In view of the utility, to combine the core dual analysis system with known sensory positioning parts working with secondary electron imaging to direct the follow up high resolution analysis to correct particle or defect as needed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art at the time the invention was made to modify Rohde to include the teachings such as that taught by Mizuno.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 - 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohde et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0027748 A1), Briant et al. (Combined analysis with WDS/EDS spectrometers in SEM; Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 44, 37-42 (2008)) and Takano et al. (US 2022/0035053 A1) in view of Horikoshi et al. (WO 2012/008089 A1).
With regards to claim 5, Rohde discloses the claimed invention according to claim 4, and further teaches each of the candidate elements returned from analysis of an EDS spectrum 50 (or for at least some of these candidate elements), the wavelength dispersive spectral collector 65 can be tuned to obtain an intensity reading for the candidate element, and intensity readings can be collected at each setting from the target location on the sample 30. The intensity readings can be analyzed to determine whether they indicate the presence of their candidate elements by, for example, comparing them to one or more "background" intensity readings: intensity readings obtained at wavelengths/energies at which no elements generate characteristic intensity readings, with these intensity readings thereby representing background noise. (Preferably, intensity readings are obtained at several such wavelengths/energies and are then averaged, summed, or otherwise combined to obtain an "average" background intensity reading which is representative of background noise.) If an intensity reading for a candidate element is similar to an intensity reading characteristic of background noise, then the candidate element is probably not present at the target location on the sample 30, and the candidate element should then be eliminated from the list of candidate elements. On the other hand, if there is a significant difference between the background intensity reading and the intensity reading for the candidate element, this can indicate that the candidate element is likely present at the target location [0012] – [0015]; [0020].
Rohde fails to expressly disclose that when a feature of the transition metal element 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, and when a feature of an inorganic substance is detected in the first energy spectrum, the computer system analyzes an element contained in the sample by using the second element analysis device.
Horikoshi teaches an analysis technique for identifying composition of a sample (Abstract). Horikoshi teaches that it is necessary to identify the source of the foreign substance as a countermeasure. SEM-EDX (Scanning / Electron / Microscope / Energy / Dispersive / X-ray / spectroscopy) is a widely used technique for identifying foreign species (Background-Art). Lastly, Horikoshi discloses that both the inorganic and organic foreign materials can be identified using EDX at the same time, and foreign materials can be analyzed with high throughput (Abstract). When the foreign material sample 9 to be analyzed is determined, elemental analysis is first performed by EDX. If the foreign material sample is inorganic, the type of foreign material can be identified from the result of EDX, and therefore the next analysis target may be determined. As a result of EDX analysis, if a large amount of carbon is detected and found to be an organic substance, then mass spectrometry is performed. In this case, the foreign material sample 9 is first separated from the substrate by the sampling tool 11 attached to the tip of the manipulator 4 and collected at the tip of the tool 11 [0015].
In view of the utility, to seek throughput by using the first, faster analysis to decide whether the slower, a more detailed follow up is worth performing in addition to expanding the classification to include inorganic and organic, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art at the time the invention was made to modify Rohde to include the teachings such as that taught by Horikoshi.
With regards to claim 13, Rohde discloses the claimed analysis system for analyzing an element contained in a sample according to claim 1, see the rejection of claim 1 in its entirety.
Rohde also teaches that an EDS spectrum 50 is first obtained from the target location, one or more candidate elements are identified from that first spectrum and WDS intensity readings are than collected at the relevant wavelengths/energies for selected candidate elements [0012] - [0015]. Rohde expressly discloses that various steps/functions of the invention (identifying candidate elements from EDS results, optimizing the position of the wavelength dispersive spectral collector by use of such candidate elements, verifying the presence of EDS-identified candidate elements by use of WDS, etc.) can be performed in automated or semi-automated form by appropriate software and/or hardware elements provided in conjunction with spectrometer components such as those shown in FIG. 1 [0022].
Rohde shows that the EDS spectrum 50 and WDS spectrum 80 are presented, preferably with an image of the target location on the sample 30 [0021] and that the images of the target location can be generated from backscattered or secondary electrons [0004]. Therefore, Rohde identifies candidate elements from the first EDS spectrum wherein criteria turn on measurability, peak height, likelihood and the like (I.e., a generic candidate element verification rather than a transition) [0012] – [0015], [0018] – [0021] (Abstract).
Rohde fails to expressly disclose that the computer system determines whether the sample is an inorganic substance by using the result obtained by the first element analysis device detecting the first X-ray, and when it is determined that the sample is an inorganic substance, the computer system analyzes an element species of the inorganic substance by acquiring the result obtained by the second element analysis device detecting the second X-ray.
Takano teaches TES as a high-resolution X-ray analyzer usable with an electron microscope for separating characteristic X-ray peaks, Takano [0005]-[0007], [0031]-[0032].
Horikoshi teaches an analysis technique for identifying composition of a sample (Abstract). Horikoshi teaches that it is necessary to identify the source of the foreign substance as a countermeasure. SEM-EDX (Scanning / Electron / Microscope / Energy / Dispersive / X-ray / spectroscopy) is a widely used technique for identifying foreign species (Background-Art). Lastly, Horikoshi discloses that both the inorganic and organic foreign materials can be identified using EDX at the same time, and foreign materials can be analyzed with high throughput (Abstract). When the foreign material sample 9 to be analyzed is determined, elemental analysis is first performed by EDX. If the foreign material sample is inorganic, the type of foreign material can be identified from the result of EDX, and therefore the next analysis target may be determined. As a result of EDX analysis, if a large amount of carbon is detected and found to be an organic substance, then mass spectrometry is performed. In this case, the foreign material sample 9 is first separated from the substrate by the sampling tool 11 attached to the tip of the manipulator 4 and collected at the tip of the tool 11 [0015].
In view of the utility, to seek throughput by using the first, faster analysis to decide whether the slower, a more detailed follow up is worth performing in addition to expanding the classification to include inorganic and organic, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art at the time the invention was made to modify Rohde to include the teachings such as that taught by Horikoshi in addition to using Takano’s TES for the second higher-resolution X-ray analysis of inorganic element species, thereby predictably improving suitability and efficiency of the analysis rout, , thereby predictably improving suitability and efficiency of the analysis route.
With regards to claim 14, see the rejection of claim 13. Claim 14 claims a method-form mirror of claim 13, wherein the same staged first spectrum/second spectrum teachings applies when expressed as method steps.
With regards to claim 15, see the rejection of claim 13 as claim 15 is a program form mirror of claim 13. Rohde also teaches that the function can be implemented in an automated or semi-automated software/hardware [0022].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 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:
With regards to claim 6, the prior art of record fails to expressly disclose or render obvious that the computer system acquires a second energy spectrum of an X-ray generated from a reference sample by using the first element analysis device, the computer system detects a difference between the first energy spectrum and the second energy spectrum as a feature, 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 isa feature of an inorganic substance when the difference is less than the threshold, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations. The prior art of record fails to expressly teach these elements combined as claimed.
Claim 7 depends on claim 6 and thus allowed based on its dependency.
US 7595489 B2 to Statham relates to method and apparatus for material identification Statham teaches identifying a material using an x-ray emission characteristic is provided. X-ray data representing a monitored x-ray emission characteristic is obtained from a specimen in response to an incident energy beam. A dataset is also obtained, this comprising composition data of a plurality of materials. The material of the specimen is contained within the dataset. Predicted x-ray data are calculated for each of the materials in the dataset using the composition data. The obtained and the predicted x-ray data are compared and the likely identity of the material of the specimen is determined, based upon the comparison.
WO 2012008089 A1 to Akamatsu relates to a micro sample analyzer as in a scanning electron microscope (SEM) for irradiating an electron to a sample that comprises foreign material, wherein the analyzing sample includes organic and inorganic foreign materials.
Neither Statham or Akamatsu disclose a specific feature variable which was a difference between a target spectrum and a first device spectrum taken from a reference sample in addition to the claimed threshold (either equal to or greater for organic substances and if less than the threshold for inorganic substance), in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Applicant claimed invention at the least creates an opportunity to reliably obtain spectrum information of a transition metal and to secure measurement throughput, in a case where a sample is analyzed using two or more element analysis devices having different energy resolution. As such, applicants claimed invention provides a nonobviousness improvement over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Djura Malevic whose telephone number is 571.272-5975. 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, 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.
/DJURA MALEVIC/Examiner, Art Unit 2884 /UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights