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 preambles for each of claims 1-20 include the term “operando scanning electron microscopy platform”. The term “operando” does not appear to be an art-recognized type of scanning electron microscope and the specification of the immediate application provides, at best, examples of an “operando” scanning electron microscope without defining the term in any limiting manner. The specification clearly identifies that the scanning electron microscope of the invention is an “operando” scanning electron microscope, therefore, the term is not indefinite. Since the term “operando” appears only in the preamble of each claim, and does not appear to further limit the scope of each claim, the term is interpreted a name for the particular type of scanning electron microscope described by the limitations of the claim, and is therefore not given patentable weight (the term does not imply any additional structural elements which would otherwise differentiate the invention from any other scanning electron microscope, other than the specifically claimed limitations).
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8 recites “ttemperature”, which is believed to be a typographical error of “temperature”. Claim 9 inherits the limitations of claim 8. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7, 9, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 20 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.
The term “tight” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tight” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what degree of contact between the solid sample and the one or more electron beam transparent coverings would constitute “tight” contact, as claimed.
The term “tight” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tight” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what degree of contact between the solid sample and the one or more electron beam transparent coverings would constitute “tight” contact, as claimed.
Claim 13 recites “the one or more orifices of the second cell” in claim 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although a “second cell” is defined in claim 10, claim 13 does not depend upon claim 10. Additionally, although claim 11 defines that the first cell “further comprises one or more orifices”, there is no recitation that a second cell may contain one or more orifices.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 18 recites “the top cell”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “the one or more orifices of the second cell”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although claim 11 defines that the first cell “further comprises one or more orifices”, claim 19 does not depend upon claim 11, and there is no recitation that a second cell may contain one or more orifices. Note that unlike the rejection of claim 13, above, claim 19 does provide antecedent basis for “the second cell” as a second cell is recited in claim 10 (there is no recitation that the second cell includes one or more orifices).
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1; Deshmukh et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0119267 discloses an operando scanning electron microscopy platform comprising: a first cell (“E-Cell” [0051]) comprising: a sample well configured to receive a solid (“specimens, including a 3 mm diameter disk, particles dispersed on a grid or FIB lamellae contained on a support grid” [0018]) sample (“Specimen 38 is mounted immediately adjacent to spacer 36b and is typically a 3 mm diameter disk which has been appropriately thinned at the central point 82 for TEM imaging and analysis” [0051]); and one or more electron beam transparent coverings (“The window membrane material must be electron transparent, able to withstand high temperature, pressure differentials in and around the chamber, and should not react with the fluid present within the chamber and may comprise, for example, silicon nitride, silicon oxide or amorphous silicon as dictated by user requirements” [0051]) positioned above the solid sample (“a cell consists of two thin film windows, which completely seal a confined space around the specimen to provide a controlled atmosphere for in situ experimentation” [0007]); wherein the platform is sealed (“window frame 30a… in sealing engagement with O-ring 44a” [0051]) and configured to withstand a temperature up to above 1,000°C (“The inventors have found that less than 1 Watt of laser energy was required to raise the specimen temperature to 2,000°C” [0057]). However, although Deshmukh discloses that “The window membrane material must be electron transparent, able to withstand high temperature, [and] pressure differentials in and around the chamber” [0051], Deshmukh discloses that “constructed from silicon nitride deposited on a silicon substrate using low-pressure vapor deposition techniques (LPCVD). It has been shown that a pair of 15 nm thick silicon nitride membranes are able to withstand a pressure differential of up to one atmosphere” [0051] – much less than the claims 10 MPa. Therefore, there is no explicit disclosure that the window is configured to withstand a pressure up to about 10 MPa.
Pease et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0062179 discloses a scanning electron microscopy platform comprising: a window that seals the platform (“Here electron window 122 can be of any material that is suitably electron transparent and has sufficient mechanical strength to withstand the pressure difference between inside the vacuum tube and outside the vacuum tube” [0029]). However, the pressure difference between the inside of the vacuum tube and the outside of the vacuum tube is much less than 10 MPa (“By placing the samples very close (e.g. 100 microns) to the window, the sample can be at atmospheric pressure or at a low, inexpensive vacuum (e.g. 10 Torr as opposed to a maximum of 0.0001 Torr for a conventional SEM system)” [0008] – “a permanently sealed vacuum tube 114 having an internal pressure of less than about 10-9 Torr (preferably having an internal pressure of less than 10−10 Torr and even less” [0027]). Therefore, there is no suggestion of sealing an electron microscopy platform to withstand a pressure up to about 10 MPa.
Gardiner et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0336144 discloses an electron transparent window for electron microscopy, wherein the window may have tensile stress up to 500 MPa (“a “membrane region” on the sample support device corresponds to unsupported material comprising, consisting of, or consisting essentially of carbon, silicon nitride, SiC or other thin films generally 1 micron or less having a low tensile stress (<500 MPa), said membrane region being at least partially electron transparent region and capable of supporting the at least one sample” [0069]). However, a membrane having tensile stress up to 500 MPa is not the same as a seal configured to withstand a pressure up to about 10 MPa, as claimed.
The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, an operando scanning electron microscopy platform comprising: a first cell comprising: one or more electron beam transparent coverings positioned above a solid sample received in a sample well; wherein the platform is seals and configured to withstand a pressure up to 10 MPa and a temperature up to about 1,000°C.
Regarding dependent claims 2-6, 10-12, and 15-17; these claims are allowable at least for their dependence, either directly or indirectly, upon independent claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-1489. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM-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.
/JASON L MCCORMACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights