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
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "6" and "13" have both been used to designate “cantilever mount” (see paragraph [0049] as filed which stats “cantilever mount 13”, whereas at paragraph [0048] as well as remaining description of the specification states “cantilever mount 6”). 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 – 11, 16, 18 are 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “less than 5N/m” (line 3), and the claim also recites “less than 1Nm” (line 2) and “less than 2Nm” (line 3) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Similar range limitations exist in claims 3 – 11, 16 and 18, thus rending each of the claims indefinite.
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.
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(s) 1, 3 – 6, 8 – 14, 18, 20 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0041540 A1 to Humphris (hereinafter “Humphris”) in view of NPL titled “Imaging Crystals, Polymers, and Processes in Water with the Atomic Force Microscope”, by B. Drake et al. (hereinafter “Drake”).
Regarding Claim 1, Humphris teaches a method of measuring a feature with a probe microscope (see abstract describing a method of scanning a feature with a probe, see also Figs. 1, 5, 13 - 15), the feature comprising a base, an entrance, and a pair of opposed side walls (see sample 7 which can have a trench 17 as described at paragraphs [0078], [0098] – [0101], see also Figs. 13 – 15 thus comprising a base, an entrance and a pair of opposite side walls as claimed);
the probe microscope comprising a cantilever and a probe tip extending from the cantilever (see arrangement at Fig. 1, see paragraph [0048] describing the scanning probe microscopy system comprising a cantilever 2 and a probe tip 3 extending from the cantilever), the method comprising:
inserting the probe tip into the feature via the entrance (see for instance Fig. 14 which illustrates the probe tip 3 being inserted into the trench 17 of sample 7, see paragraph [0079]); and
performing a measurement of the feature by contacting the feature with the probe tip (see paragraph [0082] which states “Next the surface detection unit 22 detects an interaction of the probe tip 3 with the sample surface and outputs the surface signal”, see also paragraph [0084] which states “The probe is advanced towards the surface until the tip 3 interacts with the surface, typically arising from repulsive forces but any force interaction that is present could in principle be employed. As a result a change in amplitude, phase or frequency of the periodic dither motion occurs which is detected by the surface detection unit 22 and causes the surface detection unit 22 to generate the surface signal”, hence reading on the invention as claimed), wherein at least part of the probe tip (3) has a bending spring constant which is less than 5N/m or an aspect ratio which is greater than 5 (see paragraph [0102] describing the probe tip having an aspect ratio greater than 5, 10 or 15, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Even though Humphris teaches a feature comprising a base, an entrance, and a pair of opposed side walls as described above, Humphris does not explicitly teach the feature filled with a liquid.
Drake, in the field of imaging structures in water with an Atomic Force Microscope (AFM), teaches the feature is filled with a liquid (see abstract section at page 1586 describing use of AFM to image surface of materials even if they are covered with water or aqueous solutions, see page 1587 left column – middle column describing operating the AFM with the cantilever and sample in water as illustrated at Fig. 1 and further states “Operating the AFM with the cantilever and sample in water (Fi. 1) allows not only for physiologically more realistic environments, but also for better control of the forces that are applied to the sample”… “Operation with water eliminates this undesirable and often destructive force since the tip and cantilever are always completely covered with fluid”, see also Fig. 2 illustrating AFM images of mica covered with an aqueous solution).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fill the feature with water of Drake into Humphris, in order to eliminate undesirable force hence improving accuracy of the system.
Regarding Claim 3, Humphris in view of Drake as modified above teaches wherein said at least part of the probe tip has an aspect ratio which is greater than 5 or greater than 10 or greater than 20 (see paragraph [0102] of Humphris describing the probe tip having an aspect ratio greater than 5, 10 or 15).
Regarding Claim 4, Humphris in view of Drake as modified above teaches wherein the probe tip comprises an inserted probe tip portion which is inserted into the feature, and at least part of the inserted probe tip portion has an aspect ratio which is greater than 5 or greater than 10 or greater than 20 (see paragraph [0102] of Humphris which states “Similarly the probe tip has a root and a tip, a length L from the root to the tip, a maximum diameter Wc at its root, and an aspect ratio L/Wc which is greater than 5, 10 or 15”, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 5, Humphris in view of Drake as modified above teaches wherein as the probe tip contacts the base, the probe tip has a width Went at the entrance and a length L inside the feature between the entrance and the base (see Figs. 14, 15 of Humphris), and a ratio L/Went is greater than 5 or greater than 10 or greater than 20 (see paragraph [0102] of Humphris which states “Similarly the probe tip has a root and a tip, a length L from the root to the tip, a maximum diameter Wc at its root, and an aspect ratio L/Wc which is greater than 5, 10 or 15”, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 6, Humphris in view of Drake as modified above teaches wherein as the probe tip contacts the base, the probe tip has a maximum width inside the feature which is less than 30nm or less than 20nm or less than 10nm (see for instance probe tip 3 illustrated at Fig. 5 which has a diameter of 10nm as described at paragraph [0104], hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 8, Humphris in view of Drake as modified above teaches wherein the feature has a feature width W between the side walls and a feature depth D between the base and the entrance, and a ratio D/W is greater than 5 or greater than 10 or greater than 20 (see Fig. 14, see also paragraph [0101] of Humphris which states “As shown in FIG. 14 the trench 17 has an inlet 7c; a base 7d and a pair of opposed side walls which extend from the inlet to the base. The trench has a depth D from the inlet to the base, a width W at the inlet, and an aspect ratio D/W. In the example of FIG. 14 the aspect ratio D/W is about 1.5, but it may be greater than 2, 5 or 10”, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 9, Humphris in view of Drake as modified above teaches wherein the feature has a feature width Went between the side walls at the entrance and a feature depth D between the base and the entrance, and a ratio D/Went is greater than 5 or greater than 10 or greater than 20 (see Fig. 14, see also paragraph [0101] of Humphris which states “As shown in FIG. 14 the trench 17 has an inlet 7c; a base 7d and a pair of opposed side walls which extend from the inlet to the base. The trench has a depth D from the inlet to the base, a width W at the inlet, and an aspect ratio D/W. In the example of FIG. 14 the aspect ratio D/W is about 1.5, but it may be greater than 2, 5 or 10”, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 10, Humphris in view of Drake as modified above teaches wherein the feature has a feature width between the side walls (see Fig. 14 and paragraph [0101] of Humphris describing the trench/feature having a depth D and width W at the inlet with an aspect ratio D/W as described). Even though Humphris teaches a trench/feature as described above, Humphris is silent regarding the feature having a feature width between the side walls which is less than 50nm, or less than 30nm, or less than 20nm, or less than 10nm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a feature with the width dimension as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 11, Humphris in view of Drake as modified above teaches wherein the feature has a depth from the entrance to the base (see Fig. 14 and paragraph [0101] of Humphris describing the trench/feature having a depth D and width W at the inlet with an aspect ratio D/W as described). Even though Humphris teaches a trench/feature as described above, Humphris is silent regarding the feature having a depth from the entrance to the base which is greater than 50nm or greater than 100nm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a feature with the dimension as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 12, Humphris in view of Drake as modified above teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the feature is a feature of a semiconductor device. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a feature of a semiconductor device, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim 13, Humphris in view of Drake as modified above teaches wherein the liquid is a polar liquid (see page 1586 of Drake in the abstract section describing the liquid being water or aqueous solutions, see also Figs. 1 and 2 of Drake, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 14, Humphris in view of Drake as modified above teaches wherein the feature comprises a trench (see trench 17, Fig. 14, paragraph [0078] of Humphris).
Regarding Claim 18, Humphris in view of Drake as modified above teaches wherein said at least part of the probe tip has an aspect ratio which is less than 100 or less than 50 or less than 30 or less than 20 (see paragraph [0102] of Humphris which states “the probe tip has a root and a tip, a length L from the root to the tip, a maximum diameter Wc at its root, and an aspect ratio L/Wc which is greater than 5, 10 or 15”, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 20, Humphris in view of Drake as modified above teaches performing said measurement of the feature by contacting the base of the feature with the probe tip (see Fig. 15 of Humphris illustrating the probe tip contacting the base of the feature/trench 17, see paragraph [0086] of Humphris, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 21, Humphris in view of Drake as modified above teaches comprising inserting the probe tip repeatedly into the feature via the entrance, and for each repeat performing a measurement of the feature by contacting a different part of the base with the probe tip (see for instance Figs. 15 – 18 and paragraphs [0086] – [0088] of Humphris describing drive signals that cause the probe tip 3 to contact the base as well as to retract away from the bae surface run in a cycle, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Claim(s) 2, 7, 16 – 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphris in view of Drake and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0146549 A1 to Qasaimeh et al. (hereinafter “Qasaimeh”).
Regarding Claim 2, Humphris in view of Drake as modified above teaches the claimed invention except for wherein said at least part of the probe tip has a bending spring constant which is less than 1 N/m or less than 2N/m or less than 5N/m.
Qasaimeh, in the field of multipurpose scanning microscopy probe, teaches that it is known to use at least part of the probe tip has a bending spring constant which is less than 1 N/m or less than 2N/m or less than 5N/m (see Figs. 15, 16 and paragraph [0087] which describes use of a cantilever having a spring constant of 0.1-5 N/m, see also paragraphs [0120] - [0121] and Figs. 30C, 31A – 31B which illustrates effect of varying the length, thickness, width, aspect ratio and mass of the cantilever on its resonance frequency, spring constant and quality factor, see also paragraph [0131] describing the scanning microscopy probe which can be designed in various shapes, and which can cover a wide range of spring constants, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the bending spring constant of Qasaimeh into Humphris in view of Drake, in order to improve accuracy of the scanning microscopy probes. See also additional advantages at paragraph [0068] – [0069] of Qasaimeh.
Regarding Claim 7, Humphris in view of Drake as modified above teaches the claimed invention except for wherein said at least part of the probe tip has a probe tip sidewall angle which is less than 20 degrees or less than 10 degrees.
Qasaimeh, in the field of multipurpose scanning microscopy probe, teaches that it is known to use wherein said at least part of the probe tip has a probe tip sidewall angle which is less than 20 degrees or less than 10 degrees (see paragraph [0089] describing the high aspect ratio probe trips having a tip length of 350 μm, a tip base diameter of 10-40 μm, a tip angle of 0°-8°, and a tip end radius of 0.1-5 μm. In some embodiments, the tips (130, 135) have a tip length of 10-1000 μm, a tip base of 10-1000 μm, a front angle of 0°-90°±0.5°, and a back angle of 0°-90°±0.5°. In some embodiment the tip 130 is cylindrically shaped”, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the probe tip having the dimensions of Qasaimeh into Humphris in view of Drake, in order to improve accuracy of the scanning microscopy probes depending on user’s desired application.
Regarding Claim 16, Humphris in view of Drake in view of Qasaimeh as modified above teaches wherein said at least part of the probe tip has a bending spring constant which is greater than 0.05N/m or greater than 0.1 N/m (see Figs. 15, 16 and paragraph [0087] of Qasaimeh which describes use of a cantilever having a spring constant of 0.1-5 N/m, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 17, Humphris in view of Drake in view of Qasaimeh as modified above teaches wherein said at least part of the probe tip has a bending spring constant which is less than 2N/m and greater than 0.05N/m (see Figs. 15, 16 and paragraph [0087] of Qasaimeh which describes use of a cantilever having a spring constant of 0.1-5 N/m, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 22, Humphris in view of Drake in view of Qasaimeh as modified above teaches wherein said at least part of the probe tip has a bending spring constant which is less than 5N/m and an aspect ratio which is greater than 5 (see Figs. 15, 16 and paragraph [0087] of Qasaimeh which states “FIGS. 15 and 16 show details of example embodiments of high aspect ratio probe tips (130, 135). In some embodiments, the cantilever 155 has a spring constant k of 0.1-5 N/m, a length of 200-205 μm, a width of 29-32 μm, and a thickness of 6-25 μm. In some embodiments, the cantilever 155 has a spring constant k of 0.0001-100 N/m”, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form accompanying this office action which includes the following relevant prior arts:
Yu et al. (U.S. 8,479,309 B2) teaches methods and systems for high resolution imaging of a material immersed in liquid by scanning probe microscopy. The methods further relate to imaging a material submersed in liquid by tapping mode atomic force microscopy (AFM), wherein the AFM has a microfabricated AFM probe comprising a nanoneedle probe connected to a cantilever beam. The nanoneedle probe is immersed in the liquid.
Ohnesorge (U.S. 2012/0331592 A1) teaches atomic force spectroscopy, characterized in that, that the interatomic forces are quantitatively recorded using an AFM with subatomic lateral resolution between the front-most tip atom and an electronic orbital of the opposing sample atom, wherein the said interatomic forces are in particular recorded in aqueous liquids, wherein the atomic force microscope is operated in particular in the so-called variable deflection mode where the tip flies or hovers across the sample surface at a distance constant only on average without a feedback control maintaining constant force interaction, wherein the atomic force microscope is operated in particular in an aqueous solution of suitable ionic strength such that all medium and longer range attractive forces between tip and sample material are compensated.
Humphris et al. (U.S. 7,596,989 B2) teaches probe for an atomic force microscope with the probe beam having a very low spring constant.
Mirkin et al. (U.S. 2010/0330345 A1) teaches methods of microfabrication and nanofabrication. The invention also relates to methods of performing atomic force microscope imaging.
Su et al. (U.S. 2006/0260388 A1) teaches probe and method for a scanning probe microscope. The measurement instrument probe having different effective spring constant than an effective spring constant of another section of the lever.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARRIT EYASSU whose telephone number is (571)270-1403. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Laura E. Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/MARRIT EYASSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights