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 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 limitation(s) is/are: “first device configured to: detect a charged particle of the plurality of charged particles having an energy equal to or below a first threshold; allow a charged particle of the plurality of charged particles having an energy greater than the first threshold to pass through” and “a second device configured to detect the charged particle that is allowed to pass through the first device” in claims 1 and 20.
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.
The Examiner has interpreted the “first device” as the single photon avalanche diode or the PIN diode disclosed in [0069] and has interpreted the “second device” as the single photon avalanche diode or the PIN diode disclosed in [0069].
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 § 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 1-2, 5, 7-12, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (U.S. 2020/0273664) in view of Morishita (U.S. 2012/0298864).
Regarding claim 1:
Wang discloses a charged-particle detector, comprising:
a substrate ([0057], substrate) comprising a plurality of sensing elements ([0057], substrate has a plurality of sensing elements) configured to receive a plurality of charged particles generated from a sample ([0064], detection), each of the plurality of sensing elements comprising:
a first device (This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the PIN diode or avalanche diode disclosed in the specification. Wang discloses a PIN diode in [0065] and an avalanche diode in [0037]) configured to:
detect a charged particle of the plurality of charged particles having an energy ([0057], particle detection); and
a second device (This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the PIN diode or avalanche diode disclosed in the specification. Wang discloses a PIN diode in [0065] and an avalanche diode in [0037]) configured to detect the charged particle that is allowed to pass through the first device ([0057], particle detection).
However, Wang fails to disclose detect a charged particle of the plurality of charged
particles having an energy equal to or below a first threshold; allow a charged particle of the plurality of charged particles having an energy greater than the first threshold to pass through.
Morishita teaches detect a charged particle of the plurality of charged particles having an energy equal to or below a first threshold ([0058], energy bands detected);
allow a charged particle of the plurality of charged particles having an energy greater than the first threshold to pass through ([0058], pass through of a high energy band).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the detector of Wang with the energy band filtering taught by Morishita in order to improve detection of the charge particles by improving the range of detection (Morishita; [0008] and [0038]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Wang and Morishita discloses the charged-particle detector of claim 1, wherein the first device is further configured to be operated at a reverse bias voltage higher than a breakdown voltage of the first device (Wang; [0009] and [0076], reverse biased voltage).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Wang and Morishita discloses the charged-particle detector of claim 1, wherein the first threshold is dependent on a depth of the first device, the depth being equal to a sum of thicknesses of individual layers of the first device (Morishita; [[0058], energy detection depends on thickness).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the detector of Wang with the energy band filtering taught by Morishita in order to improve detection of the charge particles by improving the range of detection (Morishita; [0008] and [0038]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Wang and Morishita discloses the charged-particle detector of claim 1, wherein the first threshold is dependent on a voltage applied to the first device (Morishita; [0087], voltage adjustment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the detector of Wang with the energy band filtering taught by Morishita in order to improve detection of the charge particles by improving the range of detection (Morishita; [0008] and [0038]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Wang and Morishita discloses the charged-particle detector of claim 1, wherein in response to detection of the charged particle of the plurality of charged particles, the first device is configured to generate a first signal corresponding to a time of arrival of the charged particle (Wang; [0093], signals generated at particle arrival event).
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Wang and Morishita discloses the charged-particle detector of claim 1, wherein the second device is formed below the first device with respect to a path of an incoming charged particle (Wang; [0066], stacked layers).
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Wang and Morishita discloses the charged-particle detector of claim 1, wherein the second device comprises a PIN diode (Wang; [0065], PIN diode).
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Wang and Morishita discloses the charged-particle detector of claim 1, wherein in response to detection of the charged particle of the plurality of charged particles, the second device is configured to generate a second signal based on an energy of the detected charged particle (Wang; [0093], signals generated).
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Wang and Morishita discloses the charged-particle detector of claim 11, wherein the energy of the detected charged particle is determined based on an amplitude of the generated second signal (Wang; [0005], amplitude represents the intensity of the electron beam).
Regarding claim 15:
Wang discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a set of instructions that is executable by one or more processors of a charged-particle beam apparatus comprising a charged-particle detector using a substrate comprising a plurality of sensing elements configured to receive a plurality of charged particles generated from a sample, each of the plurality of sensing elements comprising a first device and a second device, the set of instructions causing the charged-particle beam apparatus to perform a method, the method comprising:
activating the first device ([0065], PIN diode and [0037], an avalanche diode) to enable detection of a first charged particle of the plurality of charged particles ([0057], particle detection); and
activating the second device ([0065], PIN diode and [0037], an avalanche diode) to enable detection of a second charged particle of the plurality of charged particles ([0057], particle detection) after the second charged particle passes through the first device ([0057], particle detection).
However, Wang fails to disclose a first charged particle of the plurality of charged particles having an energy equal to or below a first threshold, a second charged particle of the plurality of charged particles having an energy greater than the first threshold.
Morishita teaches a first charged particle of the plurality of charged particles having an energy equal to or below a first threshold ([0058], energy bands detected),
a second charged particle of the plurality of charged particles having an energy greater than the first threshold, after the second charged particle passes through the first device ([0058], pass through of a high energy band).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the detector of Wang with the energy band filtering taught by Morishita in order to improve detection of the charge particles by improving the range of detection (Morishita; [0008] and [0038]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of Wang and Morishita discloses the charged-particle detector of claim 1, wherein the first device comprises a PIN diode (Wang; [0065], PIN diode).
Regarding claim 17:
The combination of Wang and Morishita discloses the charged-particle detector of claim 1, wherein the first threshold is determined based on a depth of the first device (Morishita; [[0058], energy detection depends on thickness).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the detector of Wang with the energy band filtering taught by Morishita in order to improve detection of the charge particles by improving the range of detection (Morishita; [0008] and [0038]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 18:
The combination of Wang and Morishita discloses the charged-particle detector of claim 11, wherein in response to detection of the charged particle of the plurality of charged particles, the first device is configured to generate a first signal based on an energy of the detected charged particle (Wang; [0093], signals generated).
Regarding claim 20:
Wang discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus, comprising:
a charged-particle source (Fig. 2, 202) configured to emit charged particles, the emitted charged particles forming a primary charged-particle beam ([0046], electron beam); and
a charged-particle detector (Fig. 2, 244) configured to detect a plurality of signal charged particles generated upon interaction of the charged particles of the primary charged-particle beam with a sample ([0056]-[0059], detects charged particles), the charged-particle detector comprising:
a substrate ([0057], substrate) comprising a plurality of sensing elements,
each of the plurality of sensing elements comprising:
a first device configured to detect a charged particle of the plurality of charged particles(This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the PIN diode or avalanche diode disclosed in the specification. Wang discloses a PIN diode in [0065] and an avalanche diode in [0037]) and allow a charged particle of the plurality of charged particles to pass through ([0057], particle detection); and
a second device configured to detect the charged particle that is allowed to pass through the first device (This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the PIN diode or avalanche diode disclosed in the specification. Wang discloses a PIN diode in [0065] and an avalanche diode in [0037]).
However, Wang fails to disclose a charged particle of the plurality of charged particles having an energy equal to or below a first threshold energy and allow a charged particle of the plurality of charged particles having an energy greater than the first threshold energy to pass through; a second device configured to detect the charged particle that is allowed to pass through the first device.
Morishita teaches charged particle of the plurality of charged particles having an energy equal to or below a first threshold energy ([0058], energy bands detected) and allow a charged particle of the plurality of charged particles having an energy greater than the first threshold energy to pass through ([0058], pass through of a high energy band).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Wang with the energy band filtering taught by Morishita in order to improve detection of the charge particles by improving the range of detection (Morishita; [0008] and [0038]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (U.S. 2020/0273664) in view of Morishita (U.S. 2012/0298864) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheifetz (U.S. 2019/0259571).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Wang and Morishita discloses the charged-particle detector of claim 1.
However, the combination of Wang and Morishita fails to disclose wherein the first device comprises a single photon avalanche diode.
Cheifetz teaches wherein the first device comprises a single photon avalanche diode ([0072], SPAD).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the detector of Wang with the SPAD taught by Cheifetz in order to reduce the noise by increasing efficiency (Cheifetz; [0074]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 19:
The combination of Wang and Morishita discloses the charged-particle detector of claim 1.
However, the combination of Wang and Morishita fails to disclose wherein the second device comprises a single photon avalanche diode.
Cheifetz teaches wherein the second device comprises a single photon avalanche diode ([0072], SPAD).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the detector of Wang with the SPAD taught by Cheifetz in order to reduce the noise by increasing efficiency (Cheifetz; [0074]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, and 13-14 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:
The closest prior arts are Wang (U.S. 2020/0273664) in view of Morishita (U.S. 2012/0298864).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Wang and Morishita discloses the charged-particle detector of claim 1.
However, the combination of Wang and Morishita fails to disclose wherein the first threshold is dependent on a doping concentration of one or more layers of the first device.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Wang and Morishita discloses the charged-particle detector of claim 12.
However, the combination of Wang and Morishita fails to disclose wherein the energy of the detected charged particle is determined based on a duration of time that the amplitude of the generated second signal is above a predetermined threshold energy.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Wang and Morishita discloses the charged-particle detector of claim 11.
However, the combination of Wang and Morishita fails to disclose wherein the energy of the charged particle detected by the second device is higher than the first threshold and lower than a second threshold.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights