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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
15: 25-26: “The cooling system 3 also comprises two compensation containers 130 which are onected via ports 132” appears to have 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.
Claims 3-7, 11-12, 14, and 22-23 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.
Claim 3 is indefinite because the meaning of “a coolant-containing maximum volume” is unclear. It is unclear whether this term refers to the maximum internal capacity of the compensation container, the maximum volume of coolant actually contained during operation, the maximum coolant-filed portion of the container, or the change in coolant-containing volume between minimum and maximum container states. These quantities may differ, particularly where the compensation container has a variable volume as recited in claim 7.
Claim 4 recites “a maximum overall volume of the at least one compensation container is 1000-times larger than the sum of…”, which is indefinite because the recited relationship between the maximum overall volume of the compensation container and the combined volume of the coolant passages and cooling line is unclear and inconsistent with the specification. The claim appears to define the compensation-container volume as being no greater than 1,000 times the combined volume, whereas the specification states that the overall volume of the compensation container is “larger than 1000-times” the sum of those values (See Spec. 18: 12-13). Accordingly, it is unclear whether the claim requires an upper bound of 1,000 times the combined volume or a lower bound exceeding 1,000 times the combined volume. Claims 5-7 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 4.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the cooling mechanism comprises a cooling space through which the coolant passage of the cooling mechanism, …” which appears to be incomplete. This limitation omits a verb describing the relationship between the coolant passage and the cooling space. As written, it is unclear whether the coolant passage extends through, passes through, or otherwise relates to the cooling space. Claims 12-14 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 11.
Claim 18 recites the particle beam system comprises “less than 10 spacers between the object mount and the object stage to maintain a distance between the main face of the object mount and the main face of the object stage.” However, this limitation does not provide a reasonably certain dimensional boundary of each spacer. Neither the claims nor the specification defines the size of the spacers or identifies which spacer dimension is to be used in determining the claimed distance. Although the specification describes the spacers as “the spacers 61 might have a spherical form … as small as possible” (See Spec. 12: 11-14:), it does not require the spacers to have a common diameter or specify whether the claimed distance is determined using a spacer diameter, radius, or another measurement. Accordingly, one of ordinary skilled cannot determine with reasonable certainty whether a particular arrangement satisfies the recited distance of “10 spacers”.
Claims 22 and 23 each recites the limitation “the method of claim 19”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 19 directs to a system. For prosecution purpose, this limitation would be interpreted as “method of claim 20”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0350554 A1 [hereinafter Sunaoshi] in view of US 2008/0124903 A1[hereinafter England].
Regarding Claim 1:
Sunaoshi teaches:
A particle beam system (Fig. 13- SEM 101), comprising:
an object mount (Fig. 13 - sample holder 109) configured to mount an object (para. [0092]: “a sample holder 109 capable of freezing and cooling the sample”);
a particle beam source (Fig. 13 - electron source 102) configured to create a particle beam;
a lens configured to focus the particle beam on the object (para. [0093]: “an objective lens that focuses the electron beam 103. The objective lens includes an upper magnetic pole 111 and a lower magnetic pole 112”);
a detector (Fig. 13 - secondary electron detector 108) configured to detect signals created by the interaction of the particle beam and the object;
a cooling system (Figs. 13/14- cooling unit 5) in fluid communication with the coolant passage (Fig. 14- cooling pipe 6 to allow a flow of a coolant through the coolant passage (Figs. 13 and 14: paras. [0041, 0098]: “a cooling pipe 6 connected to the cooling tank 1, a cooling unit 5, a vaporized nitrogen discharge tube 7 for discharging nitrogen vaporized at a leading end of the cooling pipe 6,” “the sample holder 109 that holds the sample 18 and cools the sample 18 with a liquid refrigerant (liquid nitrogen); the cooling unit 5 that cools the sample 18 with the slush-like refrigerant (slush - like nitrogen)”);
a controller (control unit 14),
wherein the cooling system comprises:
a pump (Fig. 13- pump 9) configured to convey the coolant to create the flow of the coolant (para. [0092]: “a pump 9 that is used for slush of the refrigerant”).
However, Sunaoshi does not expressly teach: the object mount comprising a coolant passage, the cooling system in fluid communication with the coolant passage of the object mount to allow a flow of a coolant through the coolant passage of the object mount; and wherein wherein the cooling system comprises a cooling mechanism comprising a coolant passage, the cooling mechanism configured to cool coolant in the coolant passage of the cooling mechanism.
England teaches an ion implantation system comprises:
an object mount (Fig. 2 – platen 28) configured to mount an object, the object mount comprising a coolant passage (Fig. 2- coolant loop 101);
a cooling system in fluid communication with the coolant passage of the object mount to allow a flow of a coolant through the coolant passage of the object mount (Fig. 2 and para. [0029]: “the cooling system often includes flexible coolant pipes 95 to supply a liquid coolant to the platen 28, a coolant coil 105 … and a coolant loop 101 to circulate the liquid coolant inside the platen 28. The wafer 27 may be cooled… The wafer 27 may transfer heat through the backside gas into the platen 28, and the liquid coolant flowing through the coolant loop 101 may then carry the excess heat away”); and
wherein the cooling system comprises:
a cooling mechanism comprising a coolant passage (Fig. 5 – secondary loop 52), the cooling mechanism configured to cool coolant in the coolant passage of the cooling mechanism (para. [0039]: “The secondary loop 52 may circulate N2 as a secondary coolant. A compressor 508 may supply N2 …to the LN2 - N2 heat exchanger 504, where the N2 is cooled down and then further circulated…to a platen 520”); and
a pump configured to convey the coolant to create the flow of the coolant (para. [0039]: “A compressor 508 may supply N2 to be transported by a pump 510 to the LN2 - N2 heat exchanger 504…”).
Therefore, therefore would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Sunaoshi’s sample holder and cooling system to include England’s coolant passage through the object mount and secondary nitrogen-coolant loop. Providing a coolant passage within the object mount would permit the coolant to flow through the mount itself, thereby cooling the mounted object more directly and uniformly than Sunaoshi’s arrangement. Further, cooling gaseous nitrogen by heat exchange with liquid nitrogen before circulating the gaseous nitrogen through the object mount would improve the cooling efficiency while reducing consumption of nitrogen coolant.
Regarding Claim 2:
Sunaoshi in view of England teach the system of claim 1. England further teaches wherein the pump is along the flow of the coolant between the object mount and the cooling mechanism (Fig. 5 shows pump 510 is along the along the flow of the coolant loop 52 and between the platen 520 and LN2 - N2 heat exchanger 504).
Regarding Claim 8:
Sunaoshi in view of England teach the system of claim 1. Sunaoshi further teaches wherein the cooling system further comprises:
a reducing valve along the flow of the coolant to provide a variable resistance to the flow of the coolant through the reducing valve (paras. [0060]: “air is sucked into the cooling tank 1 by opening the leak valve 10 to raise (pressurize) the pressure inside the cooling tank 1… it is possible to maintain the temperature of the cooling unit 5 at - 210° C….by closing the leak valve 10 and exhausting (depressurizing) the cooling tank 1 with the pump 9”); and
a temperature sensor configured to output a signal representing a temperature of the object mount (para. [0094]: “A thermocouple 16 is installed in the cooling unit 5 at the leading end of the anti-contamination trap 110 to measure a temperature), and
wherein the controller is configured to control the reducing valve based on the signal representing the temperature of the object mount (para. [0085]: “The control unit 14 reads the temperature rise from the thermocouple 16, and stops the pump 9 (S32). Thereafter, the control unit opens the leak valve to gradually raise the pressure (S33)”).
Regarding Claim 9:
Sunaoshi in view of England teach the system of claim 1. Sunaoshi further teaches wherein
the cooling system further comprises a pressure sensor configured to output a signal representing a pressure of the coolant flowing between the object mount and the cooling mechanism (para. [0053]: “The unit may include a vacuum gauge that measures a degree of vacuum of the interior of the cooling tank”), and
the controller is configured to control a delivery rate of the pump based on the signal representing the pressure (para. [0053]: “the control unit may control the pump and/or the leak valve when the degree of vacuum measured by the vacuum gauge is a predetermined degree of vacuum”).
Regarding Claim 10:
Sunaoshi in view of England teach the system of claim 1. England further teaches:
a coolant line along the flow of the coolant between the cooling mechanism and the object mount (Fig. 5: connecting lines along the loop 52 and connecting passages inside each of the heat exchanger, trim heater, and platen, etc.); and
an insulating layer surrounding a portion of the coolant line (para. [0023]: “The rigid coolant pipes may be insulated with a vacuum casing to prevent heat loss and condensation”).
Regarding Claim 11:
Sunaoshi in view of England teach the system of claim 1. England further teaches wherein the cooling mechanism comprises a cooling space (Fig. 5- space enclosed LN2 - N2 heat exchanger 504) through which the coolant passage of the cooling mechanism, the cooling space configured to accommodate liquid nitrogen (para. [0038]: “The primary loop 51 may circulate liquid nitrogen (LN2) … as a primary coolant, from an LN2 tank 502 to an LN2 - N2 heat exchanger 504 wherein a part of the secondary loop 52 is cooled by the LN2”).
Regarding Claim 12:
Sunaoshi in view of England teach the system of claim 11. England further teaches wherein the coolant passage through the cooling mechanism is non-destructively removable from the cooling space and subsequently re-insertable therein (para. [0023]: since “rigid coolant pipes may be interconnected and coupled to a platen via one or more rotary bearings,” they can easily be disconnected and reconnected via those connecting joints).
Regarding Claim 13:
Sunaoshi in view of England teach the system of claim 1. England further teaches a vacuum cladding delimiting a vacuum chamber (Fig. 5 -vacuum chamber 50), wherein the object mount is within the vacuum chamber, and the pump is outside the vacuum chamber (as shown in Fig. 5, platen 520 is within the vacuum chamber 50 while pump 510 is outside the vacuum chamber 50).
Regarding Claim 14:
Sunaoshi in view of England teach the system of claim 13. England further teaches wherein the cooling mechanism is outside the vacuum chamber (as shown in Fig. 5, the cooling system 500 is outside the vacuum chamber 50).
Regarding Claim 15:
Sunaoshi in view of England teach the system of claim 1. England further teaches wherein the coolant comprises gaseous nitrogen (para. [0039]: “The secondary loop 52 may circulate N2 as a secondary coolant. A compressor 508 may supply N2 to be transported by a pump 510 to the LN2-N2heat exchanger 504… to a platen 520”).
Regarding Claim 16:
Sunaoshi in view of England teach the system of claim 1. England further teaches an object stage that is displaceable relative to the lens, wherein the object stage carries the object mount (Fig. 2 and para. [0026]: as shown in Fig. 2, the wafer support assembly 200 include an upper portion 70 which supporting the patent 28).
Regarding Claim 17:
Sunaoshi in view of England teach the system of claim 16. England further teaches wherein the object mount is thermally insulated from the object stage (paras. [0048, 0050]: “the platen may be built upon a mechanical base ...[which] may include cooling channels, such as the coolant loop 101 as shown in FIG. 2 ... Above the mechanical base layer, there may be an insulating layer made of a ceramic material …In a preferred embodiment, the mechanical base and insulating layer are made from a single piece of ceramic”).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunaoshi in view of England, further in view of US 6057546A [hereinafter Braunstein].
Regarding Claim 18:
Sunaoshi in view of England teach the system of claim 17. However, the combined references do not expressly teach the object mount comprises a main face facing the object stage; the object stage comprises a main face facing the object mount; and the particle beam system comprises less than 10 spacers between the object mount and the object stage to maintain a distance between the main face of the object mount and the main face of the object stage.
Braunstein teaches wherein:
the object mount comprises a main face (Fig. 20a – bottom surface of sample holder 206) facing the object stage;
the object stage comprises a main face (Fig. 20a -upper surface of stage 207) facing the object mount; and
the particle beam system comprises less than 10 spacers between the object mount and the object stage to maintain a distance between the main face of the object mount and the main face of the object stage (Fig. 20a and 21: 51-59: Fig. 20a shows there are three balls 223 between the sample holder 206 and optical microscope stage 207 “to reduce friction as the sample holder is translated in the x-y plane”).
Therefore, therefore would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify the modified object mount and object stage of Sunaoshi/England to include Braunstein’s three ball spacers between the facing main surfaces. The spacers would reduce friction during translation the sample holder in the x-y plane, and also would reduce the contact area between the cooled object mount and the object stage, thereby reducing conductive heat transfer from the stage to the object mount and improving thermal isolation and cooling efficiency.
Claim 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunaoshi in view of England, further in view of US 2015/0300719A1 [hereinafter Strickland].
Regarding Claim 19:
Sunaoshi in view of England teach the system of claim 1. However, the combined references do not expressly teach wherein the cooling system further comprises a heat exchanger comprising first and second passages; the first passage through the heat exchanger is along the flow of the coolant between the cooling mechanism and the pump; and the second passage through the heat exchanger is along the flow of the coolant between the pump and the object mount.
Strickland teaches wherein:
the cooling system further comprises a heat exchanger (Fig. 2- counter-flow heat exchanger 54) comprising first and second passages;
the first passage through the heat exchanger is along the flow of the coolant between the cooling mechanism and the pump (Fig. 2: pump 55 [Wingdings font/0xE0] passage of HX54[Wingdings font/0xE0] cold-head heat exchanger 50/51); and
the second passage through the heat exchanger is along the flow of the coolant between the pump and the object mount (Fig. 2: material/cannister 43/44[Wingdings font/0xE0] passage HX 54[Wingdings font/0xE0] pump 55).
Therefore, therefore would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify the cooling system of Sunaoshi/England to include Strickland’s counter-flow heat exchanger loop. In the modified system, nitrogen supplied by the pump would first pass through one passage (“first passage”) of the heat exchanger and be pre-cooled before being further cooled by England’s liquid-nitrogen heat exchanger and supplied to the object mount. After cooling the object mount, the returning nitrogen, although warmed by heat absorbed from the object mount, would remain cooler than the newly supplied nitrogen and would pass through the other passage of the counter-flow heat exchanger (“second passage”) to pre-cool the incoming nitrogen in the first passage. The modification would therefore recover otherwise unused cooling capacity from the returned coolant, reduce the cooling load on the liquid-nitrogen cooling mechanism, and improve the overall cooling efficiency of the system.
Regarding Claim 20:
Sunaoshi in view of England and Strickland teach the system of claim 19. The combined references further teach a method of operating the system comprising:
Strickland further teaches:
pre-cooling the coolant in the first passage using the heat exchanger (Fig. 2 and para. [0026]: pump 55 discharges gas which is pre-cooled in the passage of pump 55[Wingdings font/0xE0] HX 54 so that “the gas returning back to the first stage cold head 46 is substantially cooled to a cryogenic temperature”);
after cooling the object mount, using the coolant in the second passage through the heat exchanger for pre-cooling using the heat exchanger (Fig. 2 and paras. [0025-0026]: after cooling the material 34, the coolant flew from the material 43 to HX 54 towards the pump 55 (“second passage”), and pre-cooling the incoming coolant at the other passage of the HX 54).
England further teaches:
cooling the coolant in the coolant passage through the cooling mechanism (Fig. 5- cooling gaseous nitrogen in the liquid nitrogen inside the heat exchanger 54 via cooling loop 52);
using the cooled coolant to cool the object mount and an object arranged on the object mount (Fig. 5: the cooled gaseous nitrogen is transported to the platen 520 and cool the platen 520 via its inner cooling passage 101 (shown in Fig.2)).
Sunaoshi further teaches operating the system comprising: scanning the particle beam over the object and detecting signals using the detector (para. [0092]: “a secondary electron detector 108 that detects a secondary electron emitted from a sample due to irradiation of the sample with the electron beam 103”).
Regarding Claim 21:
Sunaoshi in view of England and Strickland teach the method of claim 20. England further teaches wherein the coolant comprises gaseous nitrogen (as discussed in claim 15).
Regarding Claim 22:
Sunaoshi in view of England and Strickland teach the method of claim 20. Sunaoshi further teaches one or more machine-readable hardware storage devices comprising instructions that are executable by one or more processing devices to perform operations (Sunaoshi teaches a controller unit to control valves and pump of the cooling system based on temperature and pressure, which inherently requires storage device and processing device to execute instructions to perform operations).
Regarding Claim 23:
Sunaoshi in view of England and Strickland teach the method of claim 20. Sunaoshi further teaches one or more processing devices; and one or more machine-readable hardware storage devices comprising instructions that are executable by the one or more processing devices to perform operations (as discussed in claim 22)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 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 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 JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights