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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/01/2024 was being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 15 - 18, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki et al. (JP Pub. No. 2019-133787 A) in view of Muller et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0011113 A1).
With regard to claim 15, Okazaki teaches a radiation detection device in the broad sense of a charged-particle/SEM apparatus 10 having sample chamber 12, electron-beam irradiation unit 14, secondary-electron detector 16, power supply 18, imaging device 20, control device 22, and display 24 (Okazaki [0020]-[0029]; Fig. 1).
Okazaki also teaches the claimed radiation detection element (secondary-electron detector 16 including a scintillator, light guide, and PMT) used to detect radiation generated from the sample, and the claimed voltage application unit (power supply 18) applying high voltage to the PMT dynodes (Okazaki [0002], [0023], [0025]; Fig. 1).
Okazaki further teaches the claimed illumination unit (illumination unit 50 having NIR lamp 50a and visible lamp 50b) that illuminates the inside of sample chamber 12 for optical camera observation (Okazaki [0035]; Figs. 2-3) in addition to the claimed control unit (control device 22) controlling power supply 18 and illumination unit 50 (Okazaki [0025]-[0029], [0038]-[0039]; Fig. 4).
Lastly, Okazaki teaches the ordered relationship in which control device 22 stops HV at t2 and turns visible lamp 50b on at t3 after delay Delta t, thereby turning on the illumination unit after causing the voltage application unit to stop applying voltage to the radiation detection element (Okazaki [0046]-[0049], [0051]-[0056]; Fig. 5).
Okazaki, however, does not expressly teach that the control unit “causes the voltage application unit to start applying the voltage to the radiation detection element after turning off the illumination unit.”
Okazaki teaches that the HV-applied state corresponds to visible lamp 50b being off, but Muller is used to supply the strict safety rationale for requiring the visible-light-off condition before restarting PMT high voltage.
Müller teaches the missing PMT high-voltage/illumination timing rationale because Müller teaches a laser scanning microscope including an illumination beam path having at least one illumination light source, a detection beam path having at least one PMT detector, and a control unit for fluorescence experiments (Müller [0013]; Fig. 1).
Müller further teaches using high PMT gain/high voltage for fluorescent-light observation and protecting the PMT during high-intensity illumination/bleaching (Müller [0015]-[0016]).
Müller teaches that an on-off switch is arranged directly in the PMT high-voltage line and is controlled according to the timing of the microscope measurement process so that high voltage is switched off before the high-intensity illumination process and switched on again at the conclusion of that process or shortly thereafter (Müller [0026]-[0033]; Figs. 3-4).
Müller also claims switching off prior to, or at the start of, high-intensity illumination and switching on again when, or after, the illumination is switched off (Müller claims 1-4).
In view of the utility of Müller’s illumination-mode-synchronized PMT high-voltage switching for protecting a PMT-type detector during illumination conditions that can cause PMT destruction, blinding, ion-feedback aging, long recovery time, or light-induced interference, while restoring the detector for the desired detection interval, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement Okazaki so that visible illumination is turned on only after PMT high voltage is stopped and PMT high voltage is restarted only after visible illumination is off. The modification predictably protects Okazaki’s PMT/radiation detection element while preserving Okazaki’s optical-observation and radiation-detection functions.
With regard to claim 16, Okazaki teaches a start instruction-receiving function because an observer provides an observation/measurement start instruction, and control device 22 responds by opening partition valve 32, turning power supply 18 on, applying HV to the PMT, turning NIR lamp 50a on, and turning visible lamp 50b off (Okazaki [0042]-[0045]; Fig. 5).
With regard to claim 17, Okazaki teaches that after secondary-electron observation ends, control device 22 closes valve 32, turns power supply 18 off, stops HV at t2, and turns visible lamp 50b on after HV has stopped and after delay Delta t (Okazaki [0046]-[0049], [0051]-[0054]; Fig. 5).
With regard to claim 18, Okazaki teaches that control device 22 turns on visible lamp 50b when a predetermined waiting time, delay Delta t of about one to two seconds, has passed after HV application stops at t2 so that PMT voltage reaches zero before visible light enters the PMT (Okazaki [0049], [0051]-[0056]; Fig. 5).
With regard to claim 27, refer to the discussion of claim 15, as claim 27 recites the corresponding information-processing method implementation of the previously addressed voltage-stop, illumination-on, illumination-off, and voltage-restart control sequence. Okazaki teaches control device 22 executing the corresponding control operations (Okazaki [0025]-[0029], [0042]-[0049], [0051]-[0056]; Figs. 4-5), and Muller supplies the strict PMT light/high-voltage safety rationale as discussed above.
With regard to claim 28, refer to the discussion of claims 15 and 27 for the previously addressed operations. Claim 28 further recites a non-transitory recording medium recording a computer program causing a computer to execute the processing, and Okazaki teaches that control device 22 may be implemented by one or more processors reading and executing programs stored in a storage device to implement the control functions (Okazaki [0029]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki et al. (JP Pub. No. 2019-133787 A) in view of Muller et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0011113 A1) and Creighton et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0370307 A1).
With regard to claim 19, Okazaki and Muller teach the inherited limitations of claim 15 for the reasons discussed above.
Okazaki, however, does not expressly teach the added limitation of “a housing that accommodates the radiation detection element therein, wherein the housing includes an unblocked opening portion.”
Creighton teaches the added limitation because Creighton teaches an XRF analyzer having detector 13 located within enclosure 11 and facing aperture 54, with a removable/openable cover across the aperture so X-rays from a sample pass through the aperture to detector 13 (Creighton [0012], [0018], [0021]-[0024], [0043]-[0046]; Figs. 1, 5).
Creighton further teaches detector embodiments in which there is no hermetically sealed detector window, thereby supporting the claimed unblocked opening portion (Creighton [0021]-[0024]; claim 13).
In view of the utility of reducing attenuation and allowing low-energy fluorescent X-rays to reach a housed detector through a windowless or open aperture, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Okazaki-Muller detector arrangement to include Creighton’s detector enclosure/aperture/windowless-path arrangement, thereby predictably improving radiation transmission to the detector while maintaining detector housing protection.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki et al. (JP Pub. No. 2019-133787 A) in view of Muller et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0011113 A1) and further in view of Piorek et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0142200 A1).
With regard to claim 20, Okazaki and Muller teach the inherited limitations of claim 15 for the reasons discussed above.
Okazaki, however, does not expressly teach the added limitations of “an irradiation unit that irradiates the sample with radiation,” “a spectrum generation unit that generates a spectrum of the radiation detected using the radiation detection element,” and “a display unit that displays the spectrum generated by the spectrum generation unit.”
Piorek teaches the added limitations because Piorek teaches an XRF analyzer that illuminates a spot on a sample with X-rays and measures a spectrum of characteristic X-rays emitted by elements in the sample (Piorek [0002]-[0005]). Piorek further teaches source 302 emitting X-ray beam 304 through window 310, detector 314 receiving fluorescent X-rays 312, DSP/processor processing spectral data, touchscreen display, and displayed/stored analysis results (Piorek [0064]-[0066], [0092]-[0098], [0128]-[0141]; Figs. 2-4, 14, 16-17, 21-23).
In view of the utility of using known XRF source, detector, processor, and display components to determine sample elemental composition from characteristic fluorescent X-ray spectra, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the Okazaki-Muller voltage/illumination protection sequence in an XRF analyzer such as Piorek, thereby predictably protecting the radiation detector while generating and displaying sample spectra.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki et al. (JP Pub. No. 2019-133787 A) in view of Muller et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0011113 A1) Tannian et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0152079 A1), Watanabe et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0076500 A1), and Barbi et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0025074 A1).
With regard to claim 21, Okazaki modified each the inherited limitations of claim 15 for the reasons discussed above, including sample chamber 12 and control device 22 (Okazaki [0020]-[0029]; Fig. 1).
Okazaki, however, does not expressly teach: (1) “an openable and closable sample chamber”; (2) “an atmosphere adjustment unit that performs atmosphere adjustment for decompressing an inside of the closed sample chamber or for filling the closed sample chamber with specific gas and introduces air outside the sample chamber into the sample chamber having been subjected to the atmosphere adjustment”; (3) “a temperature adjustment unit that adjusts a temperature of the radiation detection element, and a temperature sensor that measures a temperature in the radiation detector”; and (4) “the control unit controls the atmosphere adjustment unit to adjust a timing at which air outside the sample chamber is to be introduced into the sample chamber on the basis of the temperature measured by the temperature sensor.”
Tannian teaches deficiencies (1) and (2) because Tannian teaches a handheld XRF analyzer having a controlled volume 20 about X-ray source 12 and detector 18, vacuum pump 22 or helium purge source 26, purge gas inlet 40, pressure sensor 27, processor 30, and display 32, thereby teaching a sample-analysis chamber/volume with vacuum or gas atmosphere adjustment for XRF detection (Tannian [0040]-[0049]; Figs. 1-4).
Watanabe teaches deficiency (3) because Watanabe teaches a radiation detector/FPD including temperature sensor 202, temperature controller 203, temperature sustainer 204, fan 205, and power supply 206, with controller logic for heating or cooling the detector based on measured detector temperature and predetermined limits (Watanabe [0035], [0043], [0049]-[0055], [0057]-[0064]; Figs. 1-3, 8-9).
Barbi teaches deficiency (4) because Barbi teaches that condensation may occur when sample chamber 3 is vented for sample exchange and that an interlock to vent control, using heating and/or time delay, ensures the device warms sufficiently before air is introduced into sample chamber 3 (Barbi [0086]-[0087]; Fig. 18).
In view of the utility of maintaining low-atomic-number XRF performance through purge/vacuum atmosphere control while avoiding condensation or temperature-related detector damage during chamber vent/backfill, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Okazaki, as already protected by Muller , to include Tannian’s XRF controlled-volume atmosphere control, Watanabe’s detector-temperature sensing and adjustment, and Barbi’s vent-control interlock before air introduction, thereby predictably protecting the detector and chamber components during atmosphere changes.
With regard to claim 22, Watanabe teaches comparing measured detector temperature with predetermined upper and lower threshold temperatures and controlling detector temperature based on the threshold comparison (Watanabe [0049]-[0055], [0063]-[0064]; Figs. 8-9).
Barbi teaches the air-introduction portion of claim 22 because Barbi teaches that sample chamber 3 is vented for sample exchange and that an interlock ensures the detector/device warms sufficiently before air is introduced into the sample chamber (Barbi [0086]-[0087]; Fig. 18).
In view of the utility of using measured detector temperature and predetermined threshold conditions to determine whether chamber venting/air introduction can occur without condensation or detector damage, it would have been obvious to use Watanabe’s threshold-based detector-temperature information in Barbi’s vent-control interlock, thereby predictably controlling outside-air introduction based on detector temperature.
With regard to claim 23, Barbi teaches an air-introduction or vent-control instruction context because Barbi describes venting sample chamber 3 for sample exchange and an interlock to the vent control that prevents venting/air introduction until the device has warmed sufficiently (Barbi [0086]-[0087]; Fig. 18).
Watanabe teaches heating the radiation detector based on measured detector temperature because Watanabe teaches a temperature controller and temperature sustainer that heats or cools the detector according to upper/lower temperature limits (Watanabe [0049]-[0055], [0063]-[0064]; Figs. 8-9).
In view of the utility of preparing a cooled detector for safe chamber venting in response to a vent or air-introduction request, it would have been obvious to use Watanabe’s detector-heating control in Barbi’s vent-control interlock, thereby predictably heating the radiation detection element when an air-introduction instruction is received and before outside air is admitted.
With regard to claim 24, Watanabe teaches an output unit that outputs a waiting instruction because Watanabe teaches estimating and displaying a waiting time until the detector reaches a target or rated temperature and using interlock control before X-ray operation is permitted (Watanabe [0072]-[0076]; Figs. 10-11).
Barbi teaches that the waiting or warming period occurs before air is introduced into the sample chamber because Barbi’s interlock to the vent control uses a heating element or time delay to ensure the device warms sufficiently before sample chamber 3 is vented and air is introduced (Barbi [0086]-[0087]; Fig. 18).
In view of the utility of informing an operator or controller to wait while a cooled detector warms to a safe venting temperature, it would have been obvious to use Watanabe’s waiting-time output in Barbi’s vent-control interlock, thereby predictably outputting a waiting instruction before outside air is introduced into the sample chamber.
Claims 25 - 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki et al. (JP Pub. No. 2019-133787 A) in view of Muller et al. (US Pat. No. 5,559,324), Tannian et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0152079 A1), Watanabe et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0076500 A1), Barbi et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0025074 A1), and Jasper et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0107437 A1).
With regard to claim 25, Okazaki modified teach the inherited limitations of claim 21 for the reasons discussed above.
Tannian teaches the added gas-pressure-sensor limitation because Tannian teaches pressure sensor 27 measuring pressure in the controlled volume of an XRF analyzer and processor 30 responding to the pressure signal to determine whether vacuum or purge conditions have been compromised (Tannian [0040]-[0049]; Figs. 1-4).
Watanabe teaches detector cooling because Watanabe teaches cooling the detector when detected temperature exceeds an upper limit and controlling detector temperature using temperature controller 203, temperature sustainer 204, and fan 205 (Watanabe [0049]-[0055], [0063]-[0064]; Figs. 8-9).
Jasper teaches the pressure/purge/cooling interlock relationship because Jasper teaches supplying purge gas to detector 70 for a start-up time period before detector cooling and controlling cooling device 90 after purge/sensor conditions are satisfied, including pressure or humidity-type conditions used to protect the detector during cooling (Jasper [0024]-[0033], [0058]-[0068]; Figs. 1-7; claims 1, 3-4, 15).
In view of the utility of preventing moisture, condensation, or pressure-related detector damage by avoiding detector cooling until a dry/purged/acceptable atmosphere has been established, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use Tannian’s pressure-sensed XRF atmosphere condition as an interlock input for Watanabe detector cooling, as further taught by Jasper’s purge-before-cooling control logic, thereby predictably starting cooling only when the atmosphere adjustment and pressure/purge conditions indicate a safe detector environment.
With regard to claim 26, Tannian teaches supplying a specific gas, including helium purge gas, into the controlled volume of an XRF analyzer for a predetermined purge condition or period (Tannian [0022]-[0032], [0040]-[0049]; Figs. 1-4).
Jasper teaches starting detector cooling after purge gas has been supplied for a predetermined time because Jasper teaches determining a start-up time period during which purge gas is supplied before triggering cooling device 90 for detector 70 (Jasper [0024]-[0033], [0058]-[0068]; Figs. 1-7; claims 1, 3-4, 15).
In view of the utility of establishing a dry/purged detector environment before cooling begins, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply Jasper’s predetermined purge-before-cooling interval to the Tannian/Watanabe/Barbi XRF controlled-atmosphere detector arrangement, thereby predictably starting cooling only after specific gas has been supplied for the predetermined time.
Conclusion
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