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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2024, 6/3/2025 and 12/5/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 15 are each indefinite at least because each appear to be redundant to parent claim 1, which already specifies multiple detectors, each corresponding to a given light bundle. As such, the narrower scope of each claim over the base claim is unclear.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 7 and 8 each recite the limitation, “wherein the x-ray source comprises a single electron beam source configured to generate a main electron beam”. This limitation contradicts parent claim 2, which requires, “wherein the x-ray source comprises a plurality of separate electron beam sources”. As such, claims 7 and 8 each fail to further limit parent claim 2.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Examiner’s Note: Since the identical limitations exist in claims 12 and 13, respectively, which each depend directly from base claim 1, the Examiner recommends simply deleting claims 7 and 8.
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 9, 10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiu (US 2004/0240616 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Qiu discloses an x-ray inspection system configured to inspect an object (Figs.13 and 14), including:
a) an x-ray source 14 configured to generate a plurality of separate x-ray light bundles;
b) an object mount configured to hold the object so that separate x-ray light bundles propagate through an ROI 70 of the object; and
c) a detection system 74 having separate detector areas 731, 732, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “73N”), configured to detect the separate x-ray light bundles, respectively, after propagating through the ROI 70 (pars.0063-0068); where the x-ray inspection system is configured so that:
d) the chief rays of at least two of the separate x-ray light bundles impinge on the ROI with different chief ray illumination angles (Figs.13 and 14; pars.0063-0068); and
e) the x-ray light bundles with different chief ray illumination angles simultaneously impinge on the ROI (see at least pars.0064, 0065 and 0067).
With respect to claim 2, Qiu further discloses that the x-ray source 14 has a plurality of separate electron beam sources 11, and each electron beam source 11 has a converting element 10 configured to convert the electron beams into x-rays at separate x-ray source regions 10 (Figs.5-9).
With respect to claim 3, Qiu further discloses that the x-ray source regions 10 are in a source plane 13 of the x-ray inspection system (Fig.5).
With respect to claim 4, Qiu further discloses that the multiple x-ray source regions 10 are on a circle (Figs.5-9).
With respect to claim 5, Qiu further discloses (Fig.8):
f) multiple x-ray source regions are on multiple circles (31, 32, 33) in the source plane 13 (par.0053);
g) different circles 31, 32, 33 have different radii; and
h) for a given circle, the x-ray source regions 10 are at the same polar angles (source regions 10 correspond 1:1 to the illustrated electron emitters 11: par.0053).
With respect to claim 6, Qiu further discloses electron beam optics (Fig.10) in an electron beam path of the electron beams upstream of the x-ray source regions 10, where the electron beam optics are configured to focus the separate paths of the electron beams and/or steer a direction of the separate paths of the electron beams (par.0054).
With respect to claim 9, Qiu further discloses an aperture device 82 in a beam path between the x-ray source region 80 and the ROI 70 (Fig.15; par.0069).
With respect to claim 10, Qiu further discloses that the detection system 74 includes a plurality of detection devices 73N, and each detection device 73N is attributed to a separate x-ray light bundle (Figs.13 and 14; see at least pars.0064, 0065 and 0067).
With respect to claim 14, Qiu further discloses an aperture device 82 in a beam path between the x-ray source region 80 and the ROI 70 (Fig.15; par.0069).
With respect to claim 15, Qiu further discloses that the detection system 74 includes a plurality of detection devices 73N, each detection device 73N is attributed to a separate x-ray light bundle (Figs.13 and 14; see at least pars.0064, 0065 and 0067).
With respect to claim 16, Qiu further discloses that each detection device 73N includes a sensor array (pars.0063-0068).
Regarding claim 17, Qiu discloses a method of inspecting an object (Figs.13 and 14), including:
a) impinging separate x-ray light bundles on an ROI 70 of an object so that chief rays of at least two of the separate x-ray light bundles impinge on the ROI with different chief ray illumination angles, and so that x-ray light bundles with different chief ray illumination angles simultaneously impinge on the ROI 70 (see at least pars.0064, 0065 and 0067); and
b) after the separate x-ray light bundles impinge on the ROI 70, detecting the separate x-ray light bundles at respective separate detection areas 731, 732, etc. (hereinafter “73N”).
With respect to claim 18, Qiu further discloses using an x-ray source (Figs.5-9) to generate the separate x-ray light bundles, where the x-ray source includes a plurality of separate electron beam sources 11, each electron beam source 11 including a converting element 10 configured to convert the electron beams into x-rays at separate x-ray source regions 10.
With respect to claim 19, Qiu further discloses that the x-ray source regions 10 are in a source plane 13 of the x-ray inspection system (Fig.5).
With respect to claim 20, Qiu further discloses that the multiple x-ray source regions 10 are on a circle (Figs.5-9).
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 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu, as applied to claim 2, in view of Adler (US 2014/0064445 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Qiu does not specifically disclose a post-magnification unit (as defined by the Specification as originally filed: p.5, lines 18-22, and p.9, lines 9-11).
Adler teaches the practice of providing a post-magnification unit 400 for an imaging detector 500 in a high-speed x-ray metrology system in order to significantly improve the spatial resolution and overall visibility of the ROI for more effective inspection abilities (Figs.5-7B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Qiu to include a post-magnification unit in the detection system in order to dramatically improve object inspection accuracy, precision, and resolution, as taught by Adler.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 12 and 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: while Qiu teaches an alternative embodiment of one common electron source 55 from which multiple beams may be extracted simultaneously by the rotating gate electrodes 51 (Fig.11; par.0056), it is not considered to be a single “main electron beam” that requires subsequent splitting, as required by the claims.
Reinhold teaches an x-ray tomosynthesis imaging system having an electron beam 56 generate x-rays with different chief ray illumination angles simultaneously at two different converting elements 42, each to a different ROI 66 and 68, that are detected at different areas of the detector 44 (Fig.4, pars.0089-0090). Based on the paucity of the disclosure, only two x-ray beams emit simultaneously, which is limiting compared to the disclosure of Qiu where all x-ray beams may be emitted simultaneously for faster imaging. Further, each beam of Reinhold has chief rays that illuminate one of the regions of interest 66, 68, contrary to Qiu and contrary to that required by the claims. Absent the benefit of Applicant’s disclosure, there is no reason to combine the teachings of Reinhold and Qiu.
Therefore, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation of having the x-ray source include a single electron beam source to generate a main electron beam; an electron beam splitting unit (or an acceleration unit, claims 8 and 13) configured to split the main electron beam into a plurality of separate partial electron beams; and a converting element to convert the partial electron beams at separate x-ray source regions into x-rays, as required by the combinations of features as claimed in each of claims 7, 8, 12 and 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang (US 2006/0050842 A1) teaches producing a flat electron beam from a single source in order to provide a plurality of illumination angles simultaneously to the same ROI for an x-ray CT system; however, there are no beam splitting details disclosed or illustrated;
Ogawa (US 2019/0360951 A1) teaches a charged-particle backscatter imaging inspection system where a plurality of charged particle beams (such as electrons) are split from a common source and emitted simultaneously, each to a different ROI (Fig.3; par.0036); and
The remaining prior art made of record provides further evidence of the state of the art and/or US patent family members of previously-cited prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R ARTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2485. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6:30pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached on 571.272.2273. 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.
THOMAS R. ARTMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/THOMAS R ARTMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights