DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification Objections
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.
The following title is suggested: IMAGING SYSTEM AND IMAGING METHOD FOR CORRECTING ANGLE AND HEIGHT OF LAMELLA IN A CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM DEVICE.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
PNG
media_image1.png
182
936
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
PNG
media_image2.png
176
936
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that 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.
Claim limitation “surface shape measurement device” and “charged particle beam device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-14 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Limitation
Structure
surface shape measurement device
“a white light interference microscope (CSI), a laser confocal microscope (LSM), an optical microscope or an electron microscope (X,Y) combined with a height sensor (Z), and optical or electron microscopes that perform imaging in a plurality of directions or using a plurality of detectors to obtain three-dimensional coordinates” [0034] of the published application
charged particle beam device
“a transmission electron microscope (TEM) or a scanning transmission electron microscope (STEM)” [0036]
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image3.png
158
934
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller et al. (US 20160126060 A1) [hereinafter Fuller].
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Fuller teaches an imaging system comprising:
a surface shape measurement device (e.g. SEM, fig 1: 41) configured to measure three-dimensional coordinate information of a surface shape of a lamella (see e.g. dimensions, [0035]) having a laminated structure (e.g. [0033]);
a computer system (required for operation of system) configured to calculate, based on the three-dimensional coordinate information measured by the surface shape measurement device, correction information for correcting an angle and a height of the lamella during imaging of the lamella (see correction step, [0036]), and to transmit the calculated correction information (required for correction step, [0036]); and
a charged particle beam device (see fig 1) configured to receive the correction information, correct the angle and the height of the lamella based on the correction information (performs milling, see [0036]), and irradiate the lamella of which the angle and the height are corrected with a charged particle beam to image the lamella (imaged after each milling step, see [0036]).
Fuller may fail to explicitly disclose the correction information being for correcting an angle and a height of the lamella. However, given the teaching that the lamella is milled to achieve a desired thickness (see [0036]), and that the angles are adjusted to achieve a desired angle (see [0038]), under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the correction information includes this information, and/or it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide this information to achieve the desired effect of providing a target lamella shape and dimensions.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brogden et al. (US 20160141147 A1) [hereinafter Brogden].
Regarding claim 1, Brogden teaches an imaging system comprising:
a surface shape measurement device (e.g. SEM, fig 1) configured to measure three-dimensional coordinate information of a surface shape of a lamella (see e.g. [0094,97]) having a laminated structure (e.g. [0057,16]);
a computer system (required for operation of system) configured to calculate, based on the three-dimensional coordinate information measured by the surface shape measurement device (see e.g. [0094,97]), correction information for correcting an angle and a height of the lamella during imaging of the lamella (see positional correction, [0096], and also taking into account angular movement, [0100], amounting to the same mathematical function even if different mathematical parameterization), and to transmit the calculated correction information (required for operation of system, see e.g. fig 21: 2116); and
a charged particle beam device (see fig 1) configured to receive the correction information, correct the angle and the height of the lamella based on the correction information (performs movement, see e.g. fig 21: 2116), and irradiate the lamella of which the angle and the height are corrected (welded with corrected welding position/angles) with a charged particle beam to image the lamella (imaged by S/TEM).
Brogden may fail to explicitly disclose the charged particle beam device irradiating the corrected lamella. However, Brogden teaches a TEM or STEM is required for the intended operation of imaging the lamella (see Brogden, [0004-8]), and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide the use of the TEM in the charged particle beam device (for example even providing a totally separate column inside the same overall device) as an ordinary skill in the art to enable the intended operation of the system. It is noted the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claim 5, Brogden teaches wherein the surface shape measurement device obtains the three-dimensional coordinate information of at least three or more points on the lamella (uses all points on the lamella during image processing, see [0093,86,88,etc], fig 21: 2102, 2110, etc), and calculates the correction information based on the three-dimensional coordinate information of the at least three or more points (see same).
Regarding claim 9, Brogden teaches an imaging method comprising:
measuring, by a surface shape measurement device (e.g. SEM, fig 1), three-dimensional coordinate information of a surface shape of a lamella (see e.g. [0094,97]) having a laminated structure (e.g. [0057,16]);
calculating, by a computer (required for operation of system), based on the three-dimensional coordinate information measured by the surface shape measurement device (see e.g. [0094,97]), correction information for correcting an angle and a height of the lamella during imaging of the lamella (see positional correction, [0096], and also taking into account angular movement, [0100], amounting to the same mathematical function even if different mathematical parameterization), and transmitting the calculated correction information to a charged particle beam device (required for operation of system, see e.g. fig 21: 2116); and
receiving, by the charged particle beam device, the correction information, correcting the angle and the height of the lamella based on the correction information (performs movement, see e.g. fig 21: 2116), and irradiating the lamella of which the angle and the height are corrected (welded with corrected welding position/angles) with a charged particle beam to image the lamella (imaged by S/TEM).
Brogden may fail to explicitly disclose the charged particle beam device irradiating the corrected lamella. However, Brogden teaches a TEM or STEM is required for the intended operation of imaging the lamella (see Brogden, [0004-8]), and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide the use of the TEM in the charged particle beam device (for example even providing a totally separate column inside the same overall device) as an ordinary skill in the art to enable the intended operation of the system. It is noted the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).
Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 2-4, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brogden, as applied to claim 1, 9 above, further in view of Karlík et al. (US 20230093535 A1) [hereinafter Karlik].
Regarding claim 2, Brogden may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, Brodgen teaches requiring imaging the grid and all locations on the grid in three dimensions (see Brogden, e.g. [0092]), and the use of measuring and taking into account the shape of the mesh holder was well known in the art. For example, Karlik teaches a system to image the entire sample holder to assess viability of positions at which lamella can be welded (see Karlik, [0002,15]), wherein the surface shape measurement device measures three-dimensional coordinate information of a surface shape of a mesh (TEM grid, which is a form of mesh; also note well-known use of the terms TEM grid and TEM mesh interchangeably) on which a plurality of the lamellae are allowed to be placed (see coordinates, e.g. [0022,41], imaging, e.g. [0047]), and the three-dimensional coordinate information of each of the surface shapes of the lamellae placed on the mesh (e.g. [0027]), and the computer system calculates the correction information based on the three- dimensional coordinate information of the surface shape of the mesh and the three-dimensional coordinate information of the surface shape of the lamella (positions at which the welding occurs based on information about the lamella shape/position and acceptable welding location). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Karlik in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to only use viable locations for welding the lamella, in the manner taught by Karlik.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Brogden and Karlik teaches the computer system calculates, based on the three-dimensional coordinate information of a surface shape of a first lamella measured by the surface shape measurement device and the three-dimensional coordinate information of the surface shape of the mesh (dimensions of the grid and the lamella), first correction information for correcting an angle and a height of the first lamella when imaging the first lamella (see moving lamella to correct 3D position during welding, Brogden, fig 21: 2114-2118), and calculates, based on the three-dimensional coordinate information of a surface shape of a second lamella different from the first lamella measured by the surface shape measurement device and the three-dimensional coordinate information of the surface shape of the mesh (during repeating the process for next lamella, see [0102]), second correction information for correcting an angle and a height of the second lamella when imaging the second lamella (see moving lamella to correct 3D position during welding).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Brogden and Karlik teaches the computer system calculates, based on the three-dimensional coordinate information of a surface shape of a first lamella measured by the surface shape measurement device and the three-dimensional coordinate information of the surface shape of the mesh at a position where the first lamella is placed (based on dimensions of the grid and lamella), first correction information for correcting an angle and a height of the first lamella when imaging the first lamella (see moving lamella to correct 3D position during welding, Brogden, fig 21: 2114-2118), and calculates, based on the three-dimensional coordinate information of a surface shape of a second lamella different from the first lamella measured by the surface shape measurement device and the three-dimensional coordinate information of the surface shape of the mesh at a position where the second lamella is placed (during repeating the process for next lamella, see [0102]), second correction information for correcting an angle and a height of the second lamella when imaging the second lamella (see moving lamella to correct 3D position during welding).
Regarding claim 10, Brogden may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Karlik, for similar reasons as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 11, Brogden may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Karlik, for similar reasons as claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 6, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brogden, as applied to claim 1, 9 above, further in view of Boltje et al. (US 20240280357 A1) [hereinafter Boltje].
Regarding claim 6, Brogden may fail to explicitly disclose the surface shape measurement device is a white light interference microscope. However, Boltje teaches using white light interference microscopy to perform surface shape measurements to improve precision and reduce potential damage to the lamella (see Boltje, [0009-10,153]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Boltje in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve control over the system, including trying to use the light interferometer in addition or instead of the SEM imaging system to improve precision and/or reduce potential damage to the final lamella, in the manner taught by Boltje.
Regarding claim 13, Brogden may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Boltje, for similar reasons as claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brogden, as applied to claim 1, 9 above, further in view of Young et al. (US 20120187285 A1) [hereinafter Young].
Regarding claim 7, Brogden may fail to explicitly disclose the charged particle beam device further corrects the angle of the lamella by utilizing a diffraction phenomenon caused by the charged particle beam, and images the lamella after correcting the angle and the height of the lamella based on the correction information. However, Young teaches taking into account diffraction phenomenon when thinning samples to improve surface parallelization and uniformity (see e.g. Young, [0089]), comprising to further corrects the angle of the lamella by utilizing a diffraction phenomenon caused by the charged particle beam (see e.g. dark field imaging, [0043]), and images the lamella after correcting the angle and the height of the lamella based on the correction information (subsequent imaging of the final lamella and/or intervening imaging during milling). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Young in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve uniformity and parallelization of milling, in the manner taught by Young.
Regarding claim 14, Brogden may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Young, for similar reasons as claim 7 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm 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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights