DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of evaluating known sample parameter information and photoemission spectrum information to determine another sample parameter value. The “determining” limitation is recited entirely in result-oriented functional language and does not require a particular mathematical model, inversion procedure, fitting algorithm, calculation, or technical mechanism for deriving the value. Under BRI, the claimed determination therefore falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps merely supply the information needed to perform the abstract determination. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the other claimed elements are recited only at a high level of generality.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 (“Non-destructive depth profile evaluation of multi-layer thin film stack using simultaneous analysis of data from multiple X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy instruments,” Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 2022 Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 61 046501).
With regards to claims 1, 11, 14, and 15, D1 discloses a method for determining a value of at least one of n sample parameters at a measuring point of a sample based on photoemission measurements without destroying the sample during the photoemission measurements, comprising (Abstract; 1. Introduction; 2.3 Simultaneous MSM analysis; 4. Conclusions):
obtaining values for at least one sample parameter and up to n-1 sample parameters from a set of n sample parameters at the measuring point of the sample (2.3 Simultaneous MSM analysis; Table III),
obtaining a plurality of photoemission spectra captured with different excitation energies from the measuring point of the sample (2.2 ARXPS measurement; Tables II(a)-II(s), III),
determining the value of the at least one sample parameter at the measuring point of the sample based on the values of the up to n-1 sample parameters and the photoemission spectra (2.3 Simultaneous MSM analysis; Table III, Figs. 3-5 and 9).
With regards to claim 2, D1 discloses wherein the at least one sample parameter whose value is to be determined describes a part of a sample structure at the measuring point of the sample (Figs. 3-5 and 9; 3.2 Results of simultaneous MSM and analysis-3.4 Surface oxides of Cr and Si layers; 4. Conclusions).
With regards to claim 5, D1 discloses wherein the plurality of photoemission spectra captured with different excitation energies includes photoemission spectra captured from the measuring point of the sample with different emission angles (2.2 ARXPS measurement; Tables II(a)-II(c) and III).
With regards to claim 8, D1 discloses wherein the excitation energies are in a range from 1 keV to 10 keV (2.2 ARXPS measurement; Tables II and III).
With regards to claim 12, D1 discloses the claimed invention according to claims 1 and 11 above further comprising an illumination device, detector device and photoelectron spectrometer as claimed (2.2 ARXPS measurement; Table II).
With regards to claim 13, D1 discloses comparing different samples (Figs. 2-5 and 9).
With regards to claim 16, D1 discloses wherein the at least one sample parameter whose value is to be determined describes a part of a layer structure at the measuring point of the sample. (Figs. 3-5 and 9; 3.2 Results of simultaneous MSM analysis - 3.4 Surface oxides of Cr and Si layers)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2 (US 20230215592 A1).
With regards to claim 3, D1 discloses wherein curve fitting is applied to the photoemission spectra and that the resulting ARXPS data are used as the input vector for determining the sample depth profile (2.2 ARXPS measurement – 2.3 Simultaneous MSM analysis). D1 fails to teach wherein the curve fitting procedure includes separately determining the peak areas and backgrounds in each photoemission spectrum and then determining the sample parameter based on those peak areas and/or backgrounds. D2 teaches quantitative processing of X-ray photoelectron spectra by subtracting the background; performing detailed fitting of the photoelectron spectrum; determining the peak area of the fitted components; and using the determined peak areas, together with relative sensitivity factors, to determine relative atomic percentages of the sample constituents [0139-0142]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the teachings of D2 in order to provide quantitative, background corrected photoelectron intensities.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D3 (“Non-destructive initial-profile-free depth profile evaluation of thin-film sample using angle-resolved X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and profile smoothing regularization,” 2021 Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 60 101003).
With regards to claim 4, D1 discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the step(s) as claimed. D2 teaches an X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy method comprising: selecting or reading a respective value for one or more of the sample parameters from a sample parameter database comprising predetermined values for the sample parameters (2.5 MSM procedure – 3 MSM analysis of ARXPS data). Since D1 expressly identifies its method as an extension of the original D2 MSM and uses the same physical parameters, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the previously disclosed database values to provide the predetermined physical inputs required to execute the extended multi-energy MSM analysis.
Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
With regards to claim 6, D1 does not teach the claimed interval. However, such a modification would have been known. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed interval to increase the difference between the relatively surface sensitive and relatively bulk sensitive spectra and thereby provide additional depth discrimination for MSM reconstruction.
With regards to claims 7 and 17, D1 does not teach the claimed extensions. However, such a modification would have been known. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed extension in order to spatially localize the depth profile measurement and permit analysis of a selected region of a multilayer sample.
With regards to claims 9 and 10, D1 does not teach the claimed steps. However, such a modification would have been known. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed steps to compensate for instrumental effects, reduce measurement error, and obtain more accurate and reliable values.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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 on 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights