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 Objections
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7 and 8 recite “wherein a thickness of the first covering member…is a same as a thickness of the second covering member…” contains a typographical error.
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.
Claim 4 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 4 recites “a first thickness which covers the portion of the inner peripheral surface is thicker than a second thickness which covers the end surface on the downstream side.” This limitation is indefinite because it is not clear what the first thickness and the second thickness are thickness of.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakakibara, et. al. (US 20220359149 A1; from IDS filed 10/08/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Sakakibara teaches an electromagnetic lens (magnetic field lens 13, Fig. 4, [0021]) comprising:
a coil (coil 132, [0021], Fig. 4);
a yoke (upper magnetic path 131 and lower magnetic path 133, [0021], Fig. 4), made of magnetic material ([0021]), configured to include an upper wall on an upstream side with respect to an advancing direction of a primary electron beam passing (top side of 131 in Fig. 4), an outer peripheral wall (right side of 133 in Fig. 4), an inner peripheral wall (left side of 131 in Fig. 4), and one of a lower wall (bottom side of 133 in Fig. 4) in which a gap is formed on a downstream side with respect to the advancing direction of the primary electron beam (gap between 131 and 133 of 13 where 22 is located in Fig. 4) and an inclined wall in which a gap is formed on a downstream side with respect to the advancing direction of the primary electron beam, configured to let the primary electron beam pass through a space surrounded by the inner peripheral wall (electron beam 11 passes through space surrounded by left side of 131, [0021], Fig. 4), and configured to surround the coil by the upper wall, the outer peripheral wall, the inner peripheral wall, and the one of the lower wall and the inclined wall (Fig. 4); and
a cover, made of a non-magnetic conductor (non-magnetic metal electrode 22, [0029], Fig. 4), configured to contact and cover an end surface of the yoke on the downstream side with respect to the advancing direction of the primary electron beam (22 contacts and covers an end surface of 131 and 133 of 13, Fig. 4), the end surface including a corner portion on an inner peripheral side (the interpreted end surface includes a corner portion on an inner peripheral side—see Fig. 4 which shows 22 contacting the left corners of 131 and 133 which are on an inner peripheral side).
Sakakibara does not explicitly teach wherein a corner portion of the cover is formed to have a curved surface, however altering the corner portion of the cover to be formed to have a curved surface is a change in shape that is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. teaches “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).” The prior art renders the claim obvious because the disclosure is absent demonstration of the criticality of the particular shape. The disclosure merely restates the claim language (See [0048]) without detailing the significance of the curved surface of the corner portion of the cover. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. for more information.
Regarding claim 10, Sakakibara teaches a scanning electron microscope (scanning electron microscope, [0002], [0031], Fig. 5) comprising:
an electromagnetic lens (magnetic field lens 13, Fig. 4, [0021]) configured to include
a coil (coil 132, [0021], Fig. 4),
a yoke (upper magnetic path 131 and lower magnetic path 133, [0021], Fig. 4), made of magnetic material ([0021]), which includes an upper wall on an upstream side with respect to an advancing direction of a primary electron beam passing (top side of 131 in Fig. 4), an outer peripheral wall (right side of 133 in Fig. 4), an inner peripheral wall (left side of 131 in Fig. 4), and one of a lower wall (bottom side of 133 in Fig. 4) in which a gap is formed on a downstream side with respect to the advancing direction of the primary electron beam (gap between 131 and 133 of 13 where 22 is located in Fig. 4) and an inclined wall in which a gap is formed on a downstream side with respect to the advancing direction of the primary electron beam, which is configured to let the primary electron beam pass through a space surrounded by the inner peripheral wall (electron beam 11 passes through space surrounded by left side of 131, [0021], Fig. 4), and which surrounds the coil by the upper wall, the outer peripheral wall, the inner peripheral wall, and the one of the lower wall and the inclined wall (Fig. 4), and
a cover, made of a non-magnetic conductor (non-magnetic metal electrode 22, [0029], Fig. 4), which contacts and covers an end surface of the yoke on the downstream side with respect to the advancing direction of the primary electron beam (22 contacts and covers an end surface of 131 and 133 of 13, Fig. 4), the end surface of the yoke including a corner portion on an inner peripheral side (the interpreted end surface includes a corner portion on an inner peripheral side—see Fig. 4 which shows 22 contacting the left corners of 131 and 133 which are on an inner peripheral side),
a stage configured to place thereon a target object which is to be irradiated with the primary electron beam having passed through the electromagnetic lens (sample stage 14, [0021], Figs. 4-5); and
a detector configured to detect a secondary electron beam emitted from the target object (multi-detectors 26, [0032], Fig. 5).
Sakakibara does not explicitly teach wherein a corner portion of the cover is formed to have a curved surface, however altering the corner portion of the cover to be formed to have a curved surface is a change in shape that is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. teaches “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).” The prior art renders the claim obvious because the disclosure is absent demonstration of the criticality of the particular shape. The disclosure merely restates the claim language (See [0048]) without detailing the significance of the curved surface of the corner portion of the cover. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. for more information.
Regarding claim 11, Sakakibara teaches an electron beam inspection apparatus(scanning electron microscope, [0002], [0031], Fig. 5) comprising:
an electromagnetic lens (magnetic field lens 13, Fig. 4, [0021]) configured to include
a coil (coil 132, [0021], Fig. 4),
a yoke (upper magnetic path 131 and lower magnetic path 133, [0021], Fig. 4), made of magnetic material ([0021]), which includes an upper wall on an upstream side with respect to an advancing direction of a primary electron beam passing (top side of 131 in Fig. 4), an outer peripheral wall (right side of 133 in Fig. 4), an inner peripheral wall (left side of 131 in Fig. 4), and one of a lower wall (bottom side of 133 in Fig. 4) in which a gap is formed on a downstream side with respect to the advancing direction of the primary electron beam (gap between 131 and 133 of 13 where 22 is located in Fig. 4) and an inclined wall in which a gap is formed on a downstream side with respect to the advancing direction of the primary electron beam, which is configured to let the primary electron beam pass through a space surrounded by the inner peripheral wall (electron beam 11 passes through space surrounded by left side of 131, [0021], Fig. 4), and which surrounds the coil by the upper wall, the outer peripheral wall, the inner peripheral wall, and the one of the lower wall and the inclined wall (Fig. 4), and
a cover, made of a non-magnetic conductor (non-magnetic metal electrode 22, [0029], Fig. 4), which contacts and covers an end surface of the yoke on the downstream side with respect to the advancing direction of the primary electron beam (22 contacts and covers an end surface of 131 and 133 of 13, Fig. 4), the end surface of the yoke including a corner portion on an inner peripheral side (the interpreted end surface includes a corner portion on an inner peripheral side—see Fig. 4 which shows 22 contacting the left corners of 131 and 133 which are on an inner peripheral side),
a stage configured to place thereon a target object which is to be irradiated with the primary electron beam having passed through the electromagnetic lens (sample stage 14, [0021], Figs. 4-5); and
a detector configured to detect a secondary electron beam emitted from the target object (multi-detectors 26, [0032], Fig. 5).
Sakakibara does not explicitly teach wherein a corner portion of the cover is formed to have a curved surface, however altering the corner portion of the cover to be formed to have a curved surface is a change in shape that is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. teaches “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).” The prior art renders the claim obvious because the disclosure is absent demonstration of the criticality of the particular shape. The disclosure merely restates the claim language (See [0048]) without detailing the significance of the curved surface of the corner portion of the cover. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. for more information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3and 5-9 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.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights