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 .
Drawings
Figures 2-5 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters 40 and 200 have both been used to designate a gas supply mechanism. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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 limitations are: “a gas supply mechanism configured to supply a gas” in claims 1 and 7.
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. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are further 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.
The claim limitation “a gas supply mechanism configured to supply a gas” in claims 1 and 7 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no disclosure in the specification of a particular structure which is referred to as the “gas supply mechanism”. Therefore, the specification fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) with respect to independent claims 1 and 7; and the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-6 and 8-9 are rejected because of their dependence on claims 1 and 7, respectively.
Claim 10 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. “Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph” (MPEP § 2173.05(q)). Claim 10 recites a method (“ion milling method”), but fails to recite any method steps. The only limitations recited in claim 10 are directed to structures; there is no recitation of active, positive steps delimiting how the method is practiced. Therefore, claim 10 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Asai et al. (WO Patent No. 2021038754 A1), hereinafter Asai (2021) (English machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 10, Asai (2021) discloses an ion milling method for processing a sample (FIG. 1, element 6) by using an ion milling device (FIG. 1),
the ion milling device including a sample stage (FIG. 1, sample stage 8) and an ion gun including an ion generation unit (FIG. 1, element 1), an acceleration electrode (FIG. 3, element 15), a discharge power supply (FIG. 3, element 301), an acceleration power supply (FIG. 3, element 302), and a gas supply mechanism (FIG. 1, element 200),
the ion generation unit of the ion gun including a first cathode (FIG. 3, element 21) having a disk shape (FIG. 4 shows first cathode 21 has a disk shape) and a second cathode (FIG. 3, element 12) having a disk shape (page 4, paragraph beginning “FIG. 3 is…” discloses that components designated by the same reference numerals as in FIG. 2 have the same configurations as in FIG. 2; page 3, paragraph beginning “FIG. 2 shows…”, line 5 discloses that second cathode 12 has a disk shape) provided to face each other (FIG. 3: the cathodes 21 and 12 face each other in the vertical direction), the second cathode being provided with an ion beam (page 4, paragraph 2: the second cathode 12 is provided with an ion beam extraction hole 101a through which an ion beam passes).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai (2021) in view of Kaufman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0163289 A1), hereinafter Kaufman.
Regarding claim 1, Asai (2021) discloses an ion milling device (FIG. 1) comprising:
an ion gun that includes an ion generation unit (FIG. 1, element 1) and a gas supply mechanism (FIG. 1, element 200) configured to supply a gas to the ion generation unit (page 3, paragraph beginning “FIG. 1 shows…”, lines 3-5), that accelerates an ion generated in the ion generation unit (FIG. 3: ions are accelerated by accelerating electrode 15), and that emits the accelerated ion as an ion beam (FIG. 1, ion beam 2); and
a sample stage (FIG. 1, sample stage 8) on which a sample to be irradiated with the ion beam from the ion gun is placed (FIG. 1, sample 6), wherein
the ion generation unit of the ion gun includes
a first cathode (FIG. 3, element 21) having a disk shape (FIG. 4 shows first cathode 21 has a disk shape) and a second cathode (FIG. 3, element 12) having a disk shape (page 4, paragraph beginning “FIG. 3 is…” discloses that components designated by the same reference numerals as in FIG. 2 have the same configurations as in FIG. 2; page 3, paragraph beginning “FIG. 2 shows…”, line 5 discloses that second cathode 12 has a disk shape) provided to face each other (FIG. 3: the cathodes 21 and 12 face each other in the vertical direction), the second cathode being provided with an ion beam extraction hole (FIG. 3, element 101a),
an anode provided between the first cathode and the second cathode (FIG. 3, anode 23) in a state of being electrically insulated from the first cathode and the second cathode (page 4, last paragraph, lines 6-7: the anode is insulated from the cathodes by insulator 26),
an ionization chamber that is surrounded by the first cathode, the second cathode, and the anode (FIG. 3, plasma generation chamber 100) and to which the gas is supplied from the gas supply mechanism (page 3, paragraph beginning “FIG. 1 shows…”: gas to be ionized is supplied to the plasma generation chamber in the ion generation unit), and
a magnet (FIG. 3, element 14) configured to generate a magnetic field in the ionization chamber (page 4, paragraph 1, lines 4-6), and
the anode has a cylindrical shape (abstract and FIG. 5: anode 23 has a cylindrical region 35a) whose longitudinal direction is a direction along a central axis of the ion generation unit (FIG. 3: the longitudinal direction of anode 23 is along the central vertical axis of the ion generation unit), and has a first protrusion (FIG. 5, protrusion 25a) in contact with the ionization chamber in a range from a position equidistant from both end portions of the anode to the end portion facing the first cathode (FIG. 3 shows that the protrusion labeled 25a in FIG. 5 is located at the upper end of anode 23, in contact with chamber 100 and facing first cathode 21).
Asai (2021) fails to disclose that the first protrusion is formed on an inner wall toward the central axis.
However, Kaufman discloses an anode (FIG. 3, element 71) having a first protrusion (FIG. 3a, leftmost protrusion 73) formed on an inner wall toward the central axis (FIG. 3, central axis 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Asai (2021) to include that the first protrusion is formed on an inner wall toward the central axis, based on the teachings of Kaufman that the protrusions protect most of the surface area of the anode (i.e., the portions in recesses 72) from undesirable contamination (Kaufman, paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 2, Asai (2021) in view of Kaufman as applied to claim 1 discloses the ion milling device according to claim 1.
In addition, Asai (2021) discloses that the first protrusion of the anode is formed at the end portion facing the first cathode (FIG. 3 shows that the protrusion labeled 25a in FIG. 5 is located at the upper end of anode 23, facing first cathode 21).
Regarding claim 3, Asai (2021) in view of Kaufman as applied to claim 1 discloses the ion milling device according to claim 1.
In addition, Kaufman discloses that on the inner wall of the anode (FIG. 3, element 71) in contact with the ionization chamber (FIG. 3, element 24), a second protrusion is formed (FIG. 3a, rightmost protrusion 73) toward the central axis at the end portion facing a cathode (FIG. 3, element 16), and
a height of the first protrusion is larger than a height of the second protrusion (the instant specification defines the height as “a size in a direction orthogonal to the central axis B” (paragraph 0027); FIGs. 3 and 3a show that the leftmost, i.e., first, projection 73 has a larger height in the direction orthogonal to central axis 30 than the rightmost, i.e., second projection 73).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Asai (2021) in view of Kaufman to include that on the inner wall of the anode in contact with the ionization chamber, a second protrusion is formed toward the central axis at the end portion facing the second cathode, and a height of the first protrusion is larger than a height of the second protrusion, based on the additional teachings of Kaufman that the protrusions protect most of the surface area of the anode (i.e., the portions in recesses 72) from undesirable contamination (Kaufman, paragraph 0056), and that the tapered shape resulting in the height difference between projections results in the anode surface following the shape of the magnetic field, such that there is sufficient plasma-anode contact area to avoid an undesirable reversed plasma sheath (Kaufman, paragraphs 0069-0070).
Regarding claim 4, Asai (2021) in view of Kaufman as applied to claim 1 discloses the ion milling device according to claim 1.
In addition, Asai (2021) discloses that the first protrusion is continuously formed in a circumferential shape (FIG. 5 and page 5, paragraph beginning “FIG. 5 shows…”, lines 5-6: the first protrusion is a continuous disk).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai (2021) in view of Kaufman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shen (U.S. Patent No. 6,616,417 B2), hereinafter Shen.
Regarding claim 5, Asai (2021) in view of Kaufman as applied to claim 1 discloses the ion milling device according to claim 1.
Asai (2021) in view of Kaufman fails to disclose that the first protrusion includes a plurality of protrusions formed in a circumferential shape at a predetermined interval.
However, Shen discloses that the first protrusion includes a plurality of protrusions formed in a circumferential shape at a predetermined interval (FIG. 1, protrusions 3; column 3, lines 40-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Asai (2021) in view of Kaufman to include that the first protrusion includes a plurality of protrusions formed in a circumferential shape at a predetermined interval, based on the teachings of Shen that the plurality of protrusions reduces a size and weight of the device as compared to a solid circumferential anode (Shen, column 4, line 61 to column 5, line 2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai (2021) in view of Kaufman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asai et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0221671 A1), hereinafter Asai (2017).
Regarding claim 6, Asai (2021) in view of Kaufman as applied to claim 1 discloses the ion milling device according to claim 1.
Asai (2021) in view of Kaufman fails to disclose that an inner diameter of the end portion of the anode facing the second cathode is equal to or larger than a diameter of the ion beam extraction hole in the second cathode.
However, Asai (2017) discloses that an inner diameter (paragraph 0051, last sentence: equal to or less than 5 mm) of the end portion of the anode (FIG. 2, end portion 31 of anode 13) facing the second cathode (FIG. 2, element 12) is equal to or larger than a diameter of the ion beam extraction hole (FIG. 2, element 32) in the second cathode (paragraph 0041, 4 mm).
Optimizing the inner diameter of the anode with respect to the ion beam extraction hole is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Asai (2017) teaches that “a milling rate which is equal to or greater than twice the milling rate in other conditions is acquired only in a case where…the anode inner diameter is equal to or less than 5 mm” (paragraph 0051, last sentence). As such, Asai (2017) identifies the inner diameter of the anode as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., producing an improved milling rate. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the inner diameter of the anode and identifies said diameter as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the inner diameter of the anode to meet the claimed diameter relative to the ion beam extraction hole since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai (2021) in view of Barna et al. (EP Patent No. 0267481 A2), hereinafter Barna (English machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 7, Asai (2021) discloses an ion milling device (FIG. 1) comprising:
an ion gun that includes an ion generation unit (FIG. 1, element 1) and a gas supply mechanism (FIG. 1, element 200) configured to supply a gas to the ion generation unit (page 3, paragraph beginning “FIG. 1 shows…”, lines 3-5), that accelerates an ion generated in the ion generation unit (FIG. 3: ions are accelerated by accelerating electrode 15), and that emits the accelerated ion as an ion beam (FIG. 1, ion beam 2); and
a sample stage (FIG. 1, sample stage 8) on which a sample to be irradiated with the ion beam from the ion gun is placed (FIG. 1, sample 6), wherein
the ion generation unit of the ion gun includes
a first cathode (FIG. 3, element 21) having a disk shape (FIG. 4 shows first cathode 21 has a disk shape) and a second cathode (FIG. 3, element 12) having a disk shape (page 4, paragraph beginning “FIG. 3 is…” discloses that components designated by the same reference numerals as in FIG. 2 have the same configurations as in FIG. 2; page 3, paragraph beginning “FIG. 2 shows…”, line 5 discloses that second cathode 12 has a disk shape) provided to face each other (FIG. 3: the cathodes 21 and 12 face each other in the vertical direction), the second cathode being provided with an ion beam extraction hole (FIG. 3, element 101a),
an anode provided between the first cathode and the second cathode (FIG. 3, anode 23) in a state of being electrically insulated from the first cathode and the second cathode (page 4, last paragraph, lines 6-7: the anode is insulated from the cathodes by insulator 26),
an ionization chamber that is surrounded by the first cathode, the second cathode, and the anode (FIG. 3, plasma generation chamber 100) and to which the gas is supplied from the gas supply mechanism (page 3, paragraph beginning “FIG. 1 shows…”: gas to be ionized is supplied to the plasma generation chamber in the ion generation unit), and
a magnet (FIG. 3, element 14) configured to generate a magnetic field in the ionization chamber (page 4, paragraph 1, lines 4-6), and
the anode has a cylindrical shape (abstract and FIG. 5: anode 23 has a cylindrical region 35a) whose longitudinal direction is a direction along a central axis of the ion generation unit (FIG. 3: the longitudinal direction of anode 23 is along the central vertical axis of the ion generation unit), and an inner wall of the anode in contact with the ionization chamber is formed to continuously connect an opening at the end portion facing the first cathode and an opening at the end portion facing the second cathode (FIG. 3: the inner wall of anode 23 is continuous from the opening at the top of the anode facing the first cathode 21 to the opening at the bottom of the anode facing the second cathode 12).
Asai (2021) fails to disclose that the anode has an inner diameter of an end portion facing the first cathode smaller than an inner diameter of an end portion facing the second cathode.
However, Barna discloses that the anode (FIG. 2, element 33) has an inner diameter (FIG. 1, element 34) of an end portion facing the first cathode (FIG. 1, element 32) smaller than an inner diameter (FIG. 1, element 34) of an end portion facing the second cathode (FIG. 1, element 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Asai (2021) to include that the anode has an inner diameter of an end portion facing the first cathode smaller than an inner diameter of an end portion facing the second cathode, based on the teachings of Barna that this shape advantageously provides increased ion beam current directed towards the sample (Barna, page 3, second paragraph from the last).
Regarding claim 8, Asai (2021) in view of Barna as applied to claim 7 discloses the ion milling device according to claim 7.
In addition, Asai (2021) discloses that a cross section of the inner wall of the anode taken along a plane including the central axis is linear (FIG. 3 shows that the cross section of the inner wall of anode 23 taken along a plane including the central vertical axis is linear).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai (2021) in view of Barna as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Asai (2017).
Regarding claim 9, Asai (2021) in view of Barna as applied to claim 7 discloses the ion milling device according to claim 7.
Asai (2021) in view of Barna fails to disclose that the inner diameter of the end portion of the anode facing the second cathode is larger than a diameter of the ion beam extraction hole in the second cathode.
However, Asai (2017) discloses that the inner diameter (paragraph 0051, last sentence: equal to or less than 5 mm) of the end portion of the anode (FIG. 2, end portion 31 of anode 13) facing the second cathode (FIG. 2, element 12) is larger than a diameter of the ion beam extraction hole (FIG. 2, element 32) in the second cathode (paragraph 0041, 4 mm).
Optimizing the inner diameter of the anode with respect to the ion beam extraction hole is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Asai (2017) teaches that “a milling rate which is equal to or greater than twice the milling rate in other conditions is acquired only in a case where…the anode inner diameter is equal to or less than 5 mm” (paragraph 0051, last sentence). As such, Asai (2017) identifies the inner diameter of the anode as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., producing an improved milling rate. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the inner diameter of the anode and identifies said diameter as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the inner diameter of the anode to meet the claimed diameter relative to the ion beam extraction hole since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lama (U.S. Patent No. 5,130,607 A), hereinafter Lama, teaches an anode which has a first protrusion in contact with an ionization chamber toward the central axis in a range from a position equidistant from both end portions of the anode to the end portion facing the first cathode.
Welkie et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,659,899 A), hereinafter Welkie, teaches an anode having a first protrusion continuously formed in a circumferential shape.
Kearns (U.S. Patent No. 3,228,589 A), hereinafter Kearns, teaches an anode having a plurality of protrusions formed in a circumferential shape at a predetermined interval.
Collins et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,545,420 B1), hereinafter Collins, teaches an anode comprising a first protrusion formed on an inner wall toward the central axis and a second protrusion formed on an inner wall toward the central axis at the end portion facing the second cathode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881 /MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights