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 § 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.
Claim 13 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.
Claim 13 recites “combining at least a second portion of the one or more additional second additional time intervals”. It is not clear how the time intervals are combined or what is meant by “the second portion” of the interval (in the claim the “first portion” is a portion of an image). In the following rejection it is assumed that “combining at least a second portion of the one or more additional second images” is meant.
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 1-8 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zewail (US 20100108882 A1) in view of Morita (US 20160019696 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zewail teaches a method for flexible beam blanking (by Pockels cell 112 which acts as shutter, [0074]) in ultrafast transmission charged particle microscopy (ultrafast TEM, Abstract), the method comprising:
Directing, during a first time interval, a first charged particle beam (pulsed electron beam [0018]) and a first pulsed photon beam (laser pulses, [0018]; “first time interval” can be defined to include any interval in which the photon beam and electron beam are both directed towards the target) towards a target (150);
Generating a first image of the target based at least in part on first interactions of the first charged particle beam with the target (processing electron pulses to form an image, [0018]);
Directing, during a second time interval, a second charged particle beam towards the target (i.e. a subsequent pulse of the electron beam is produced and directed towards the sample, [0018]);
Generating a second image of the target based at least in part on second interactions of the charged particle beam (multiple frames are captured, each corresponding to a pulse, [0018]).
Zewail does not teach generating a corrected image of the target based at least in part on the first and second image.
Morita teaches a TEM system which can correct for image drift of a target based on first and second images ([0094-0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Zewail to have the drift correction mechanism of Morita, in order to ensure proper image registration for effective comparison of time-sequenced images as described by Morita.
Regarding claim 2, Zewail teaches that the first time interval and second time interval are non-overlapping (intervals defined by pulses of pulsed electron beam, [0018], pulses implicitly do not overlap) and the first pulsed photon beam is emitted by a light source (laser), and the second image is generated when no pulsed photon beam is emitted towards or received by the light source (second interval can be defined to include taking of image frames taken after laser irradiation, [0018]).
Regarding claim 3, Morita teaches that generating the corrected image includes correcting a drift associated with the target ([0094-0095]).
Regarding claim 4, Zewail teaches detecting first charged particles resulting from the first interactions during the first time interval using a detector (detector 154, detects image frame at clocking pulse time zero when sample is irradiated, fig. 5, [0133]);
Detecting second charged particles resulting from the second interactions during the second time interval using the detector (capturing frame at a second time, fig. 5, [0113]); and
Wherein the detector is configured to detect a difference between the first charged particles (e.g. constructing the images) and the second charged particles in a time duration that is shorter than a time between an end of the first time interval and a second time interval (since the second irradiation pulse producing the second charged particles can be chosen as one at an arbitrary time after a chosen clocking pulse, including one from a different set of images with a different zero-pulse, the second interval can be arbitrarily long).
Regarding claim 5, Zewail teaches that the target changes from an initial state to an excited state during a first time interval (laser excitation, [0294]; image taken at 0 ns time corresponding to laser irradiation, fig. 28) and the state changes from the excited state to the initial state during the second time interval (probe detects changes after excitation pulse, i.e. loss of excitation, [0126]; second interval can be defined as the relaxation time since at least one electron pulse is directed to the sample in that interval).
Regarding claim 6, Zewail teaches detecting expansion of the target (fig. 28 [0264]) based on at least the first image and second image (time series of images, fig. 28).
Regarding claim 7, Zewail teaches generating a first group of images during the subset of intervals by pulsing the charged particle beam at the target ([0018]) and cross-correlating the first group of images [0133].
However, the method of Morita includes calculating a drift vector from a cross-correlation function ([0043]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Zewail to include the method of Morita, as argued above with reference to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Zewail teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (storage device, [0128]) having stored thereon computer-readable instructions ([0129]) that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
Directing, during a first time interval, a first charged particle beam (pulsed electron beam [0018]) towards a target (150);
Directing, during the first time interval, a first pulsed photon beam (laser pulses, [0018]; “first time interval” can be defined to include any interval in which the photon beam and electron beam are both directed towards the target) towards the target;
Generating, by using a detector, a first image of the target based at least in part on first interactions of the first charged particle beam with the target (image frame, [0018]);
Directing, during a second time interval, a second charged particle beam towards the target (subsequent pulse in series of electrical pulses, [0018]);
Generating, by using the detector, a second image of the target based at least in part on second interactions of the charged particle beam (subsequent image frame, [0018]).
Zewail does not teach generating a corrected image of the target based at least in part on the first and second image.
Morita teaches a TEM system which can correct for image drift of a target based on first and second images ([0094-0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Zewail to have the drift correction mechanism of Morita, in order to ensure proper image registration for effective comparison of time-sequenced images as described by Morita.
Regarding claim 12, Zewail teaches that the operations further comprise:
Directing first additional charged particle beams during first additional time intervals towards the target, wherein the first additional time intervals occur after the second time interval (sequence of laser and electron pulses is repeated, [0018]);
Directing first additional pulsed photon beams during the corresponding first additional time intervals towards the target (repeating step a, [0018]);
Directing second additional charged particle beams during corresponding second additional time intervals, wherein the first additional pulsed photon beams are not emitted during the second additional time intervals (repeating step c, [0018]);
Wherein the second additional time intervals occur after at least one of the first additional time intervals.
Regarding claim 13, Zewail (as modified by Morita) teaches that the operations further comprise:
Generating one or more additional first images during the first additional time intervals (repeating imaging steps, [0018]);
Combining at least a first portion of the one or more additional first images (forming video from series of images, [0091]);
Generating one or more additional second images during the second additional time intervals ([0018]);
Combining at least a second portion of the one or more additional images (in the video);
Generating one or more additional corrected images based at least in part on applying the second additional images to the first additional images. (in the combination with Morita, above).
Regarding claim 14, Zewail teaches directing a third charged particle beam during a reserved time interval (any pulse can be chosen as the third charged beam, and the “Reserved interval” can be chosen as any interval subsequent to a second pulse striking the sample); wherein a light source does not emit light during the reserved time interval, wherein the reserved time interval corresponds to a total duration of the second additional time intervals; and generating, by the detector, a third image of the target based at least in part on third interactions of the third charged particle beam with the target.
Zewail does not teach that the corrected image of the target is further based at least in part on the third image.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the filing date of the invention to use the third image of Zewail to perform drift correction on at least one other image, in order to correct all of the images collected by the sample in the same way.
Regarding claim 15, Zewail teaches a device comprising:
A charged particle beam source (140) configured to direct a first charged particle beam towards a target during a first time interval and a second charged particle beam towards the target during a second time interval (pulsed beam, [0018]);
A light source (nanosecond laser 105) configured to direct a pulsed photon beam during the first time interval towards the target (fig. 2, [0018], “first time interval” can be defined to include any interval in which the photon beam and electron beam are both directed towards the target);
A detector (154) configured to detect first charged particles resulting from first interactions with the target and the first charged particle beam and detect second charged particles resulting from second interactions with the target and the second charged particle beams (image frames, [0018]);
A processor ([0128]) configured to generate a first image of the target based at least in part on the first charged particles, generate a second image of the target based at least in part on the second charged particles (multiple images, [0018]).
Zewail does not teach generating a corrected image of the target based at least in part on the first and second image.
Morita teaches a TEM system which can correct for image drift of a target based on first and second images ([0094-0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Zewail to have the drift correction mechanism of Morita, in order to ensure proper image registration for effective comparison of time-sequenced images as described by Morita.
Regarding claim 16, Zewail teaches a beam blanker (Pockels cell is controllable shutter, [0074]) configured to pulse the second charged particle beam during the second time interval (producing electron beam by irradiating photocathode 140), wherein the processor is configured to control the light source such that no light emission occurs during the second time interval (imaging in the second interval is done after zero-point laser pulse, fig. 5, when there is no light emission to the sample).
Regarding claim 17, Zewail teaches that the beam blanker is configured to be synchronized with the light source for stroboscopic pump probing (stroboscopic imaging, [0091]).
Regarding claim 18, Zewail teaches that the processor is configured to generate the image (modified image in combination with Morita, above) during additional time intervals after the second time interval (i.e. images are constructed after detection of electrons) with a repetition rate less than or equal to 100 kHz (images constructed in half a second, [0239)).
Regarding claim 19, Zewail teaches that a first image is generated independently of the second charged particle beam (e.g, image of first frame, fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20, Zewail teaches that the second time interval is equal to or longer than the first time interval (pulses are equal in time; also intervals can be arbitrarily chosen as argued above).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zewail in view of Morita and in further view of Walden (WO 2021034569 A2).
Regarding claim 9, Zewail and Morita teach all the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Zewail teaches that the first image includes a first set of images and the second image comprises a second set of images (repeating imaging steps to collect multiple sets of images, [0018]).
Zewail and Morita do not teach generating the corrected image by modifying at least one image of the first set of images with at least one image of the second set of images, wherein the corrected image has i) a higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) than the first image, ii) a higher signal-to-noise ratio than the second image, iii) a higher resolution than the first image, or iv) a higher resolution than the second image.
Walden teaches a TEM system which combines image frames to produce a corrected image with a higher signal-to-noise ratio than the first image (integrating frames to reduce noise, [000253]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the current claims to modify the system of Zewail to perform image processing by combining images to reduce noise as taught by Walden, in order to improve the image clarity in a known manner.
Regarding claim 10, Zewail teaches generating a video of the target (making a movie, [0091]).
Zewail, and Morita do not teach generating a video of the target in which the first image is replaced by the corrected image and updating the video each time additional images are corrected.
Walden teaches a TEM system which generates a video of a target in which images are replaced by corrected images ([000138-000139], claim 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Zewail to have the updated video of Walden in order to optimize the video presentation in a known manner with no unexpected result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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 prior art does not disclose or make obvious a method comprising combining a set of images taken by an electron beam in an interval in which a sample is not irradiated with a photon beam to form an alignment image, and combining the set of alignment images; determining a first drift vector by cross-correlating the first alignment image with a first reference image; generating a second corrected image by applying the first drift vector to a first image collected during a separate time interval including a time in which a photon beam impinges on the sample, and updating the corrected image with the second corrected image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 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, Robert Kim can be reached at 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights