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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a control unit that controls the electron source” in claim 1;
The corresponding structure is “a device that controls each unit and that is, for example, a computer” (see Spec. Page 5, 1st Paragraph).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asghar, M.S.A, at al., (2017, October 16). Ceria-Water-Reactions Studied by Liquid Cell TEM - White Rose Research Online. Whiterose.Ac.Uk. [hereinafter Asghar] in view of US 2019/0155218A1 [hereinafter Boureau]
Regarding Claim 1:
Asghar teaches a charged particle beam apparatus (Abstract: liquid cell TEM) comprising:
an electron source that irradiates a membrane-type holder with an electron beam (Page 2: liquid cell TEM where “Ceria nanoparticles are suspended in water and loaded into a liquid cell holder sandwiched between two Si-nitride membranes,” and TEM inherently have an electron source);
a [deflector] that changes an angle of incidence of the electron beam (Page 4: operating a “beam-tilt wobbler running at maximum speed”);
a camera that is exposed to the electron beam transmitted through the membrane-type holder (Pages 2 and 3: “Digital video recording allows for capture of sub-s frame rate” for “acquisition of a video-sequence of nanoparticles suspended in water”);
a control unit that controls the electron source, the deflector, and the camera (operations of varying irradiation intensity, operating the beam-tilt wobbler, and performing digital video recording inherently require a control unit),
wherein the control unit obtains an exposure image by continuously exposing the camera to the electron beam while changing the angle of incidence of the electron beam focused on any one of a first layer, a second layer, and a third layer included in the membrane-type holder (Page 2 and 4: “Digital video recording allows for capture of sub-s frame rate… with mostly 6 frames/s,” “acquisition of a video-sequence of nanoparticles suspended in water with the beam-tilt wobbler running at maximum speed. Particles attached to the top and bottom membrane clearly separate by their oscillation width and direction…An undisturbed video can still be recovered by selecting frames at one beam tilt only”).
However, Asghar does not expressly teach changes an angle of incidence of the electron beam using a deflector.
Boureau teaches a deflector that changes an angle of incidence of the electron beam (para. [0058]: “means 20 of provoking a deflection of the incident beam… these means comprise coils 22… so as to produce a magnetic field capable of causing a deflection of the incident electron beam Fi by a deflection angle α from the optical X axis”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement Asghar’s beam-tilt wobbler using conventional electron-beam deflection coils, as taught by Boureau, because using beam wobbling/tilting in a TEM is conventionally performed by electrically controlling deflection coils to repeatedly change the direction of the illumination beam. Such implementation would provide a routine and known means for producing Asghar’s disclosed beam-tilt wobbling operation.
Regarding Claim 2:
Asghar in view of Boureau teaches the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1. Boureau further teaches wherein the control unit performs image processing on the exposure image (para [0063]: a phase image is reconstructed from obtained hologram images).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to process Asgahr’s acquired exposure images as taught by Boureau, so that additional phase/image information can be extracted from the recorded data, and thereby providing more useful information from the acquired image data rather than merely displaying the raw images.
Regarding Claim 7:
Asghar in view of Boureau teaches the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1. Boureau further teaches wherein the control unit obtains the exposure image by setting a plurality of azimuthal angles indicating a direction in which the angle of incidence is changed and changing the angle of incidence for each azimuthal angle (paras. [0069, 0010]: the incident beam rotates about the optical axis to form a cone, “the incident beam makes at least one revolution, the incident beam forming an angle from the optical axis of the microscope, and generates a precession cone. The angle may or may not be constant”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure the control unit of Asghar to perform the azimuth beam-tilt sequences taught by Boureau, since such processing steps enable the electronically control of the beam through successive angular position around the sample, and thus automating the known angular sequence with the control unit would provide repeatable and systematic acquisition at different beam-incidence directions.
Regarding Claim 9:
Asghar in view of Boureau teaches the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1. Boureau further teaches an electron beam biprism that obtains a hologram image by making interference between an object wave passing through an object and a reference wave passing through a vacuum (paras. [0003,0094]: a Möllenstedt biprism is used to record the hologram, by “superpose part of the electron beam (reference wave) and the other part that passed through the sample (diffused wave) and thus form the interference pattern”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure Asghar’s TEM with an electron-biprism holography arrangement as taught by Boureau, since the inference between the object wave and reference wave permits reconstruction of phase information that is not available from ordinary intensity imaging, and thus adding the briprism would provide additional quantities phase information about the sample.
Claim 3 is rejected Asghar in view of Boureau, further in view of US 2020/0064241 A1 [hereinafter Meyerson]
Regarding Claim 3:
Asghar in view of Boureau teaches the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 2. However, the combined references do not expressly teach wherein the control unit generates an FFT image by performing Fourier transform processing on the exposure image, generates a masked image by performing mask processing on the FFT image, and generates an inverse FFT image by performing inverse Fourier transform processing on the masked image.
Meyerson teaches cryto-EM imaging using a freezable fluid cell system 100 including a first electron transparent member 106 and a second electron transparent 112 to hold the biological sample 130 in between (Fig. 2 and paras. [0035-0037]). Meyerson further teaches that “During imaging of a biological sample 130” with the electron beam 126, “the most relevant sources of background noise within the freezable fluid cell system 100 can be attributed to the ice thickness, the first electron transparent member 106, and the second electron transparent member 112” para. [0038-39].
Specially, Meyerson teaches removing noises associated originated from the membranes by:
generates an FFT image by performing Fourier transform processing on the exposure image (para. [0052]: “imaging the biological sample 130 using cryo-EM includes a method 500 for reducing noise associated with the crystalline lattice of the imaging windows 128, 132… the method 500 includes acquiring a real space image 502, i.e. a TEM image, of the imaging windows 128, 132 in the freezable fluid cell system 100. A reciprocal space image 504 is then produced from the real space image by applying, for example, a Fourier transform or a diffraction pattern analysis”);
generates a masked image by performing mask processing on the FFT image (para. [0052]: “The reciprocal space image 504 comprises diffraction spots…that may be identified and masked using a noise reduction operation 506 … [such as] Gaussian shaped soft-edged masks in reciprocal space to suppress certain frequency ranges”), and
generates an inverse FFT image by performing inverse Fourier transform processing on the masked image (para. [0053]: “A corrected real image 508 is then generated from the masked reciprocal space image by, for example, taking the inverse Fourier transform of the masked reciprocal space image”).
Asghar teaches a TEM system with a liquid cell holder comprises an upper and a lower membrane. Meyerson teaches reducing noise associated with the electron-transparent imaging window members of a membrane-type specimen holder using Fourier-domain masking technique. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify the imaging processing of Asghar to include Meyerson’s specific noise-reducing technique, to suppress unwanted image components and obtain a cleaner, higher-contrast image.
Claims 4-5 are rejected Asghar in view of Boureau, further in view of Meyerson and US 2025/0078216A1[hereinafter Avert].
Regarding Claim 4:
Asghar in view of Boureau teaches the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 2. However, the combined references do not expressly teach wherein the control unit generates an image in which a noise signal originating from a membrane is reduced by performing machine learning processing on the exposure image
Meyerson teaches reducing noise signal originating from a membrane via Fourier operations, as discussed in claim 3.
Avert teaches “training an artificial neural network (ANN) to reduce noise and/or artifacts in an electron microscopy image” (Abstract).
As such, in the combined system, the noise signal originated from the membranes of the liquid cell holder in Asghar could also be reduced by performing machine learning processing on the obtained TEM, as recited in claim 4.
Asghar teaches a TEM system with a liquid cell holder comprises an upper and a lower membrane. Meyerson teaches that the electron-transparent imaging window members of a membrane-type specimen holder generate background noise in acquired EM images. Avert teaches using a trained ANN to process an EM image containing noise and generate a restored image. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to apply Avert’s machine-learning image-restoration technique to Meyerson’s acquired image to reduce the background noise signal originating from Asghar’s membranes, thereby improving the contrast and useful specimen information in the resulting images.
Regarding Claim 5:
The combined references teach the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 4. Avert in view of Meyerson further teaches the machine learning processing is performed through a machine learning processing section generated by learning an image, in which an observation image of a sample placed in a vacuum and an observation image of the membrane-type holder are synthesized, as a training image (Avert teaches that, for each training pair, creates a synthetic EM image of the specimen for use as the ANN output, and creates the corresponding distorted image from the synthetic image by adding noise and artifact features to the image content; and that distorted image becomes the ANN input, where the distorted training image can contain combinations of simulated noise and/or artifacts representative of different noise/artifact source, with varying severity and relative weights (paras. [0044, 0101]). Thus, in the combined references, an image representative of Meyerson’s membrane holder contribution can be used as the unwanted artifact component in Avert’s training-image generation and synthesize that contribution with a membrane-free specimen observation image).
Claim 6 is rejected Asghar in view of Boureau, further in view of US 2013/0037716A1 [hereinafter Tadaka].
Regarding Claim 6:
Asghar in view of Boureau teaches the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1. Asghar further teaches displaying the exposure images (Fig. 3 is identified as “Raw image and superposition image from tilt-wobbler video recording”).
However, the combined references do not expressly teach displays an azimuthal angle indicating a direction in which the angle of incidence is changed, together with the exposure image.
Tadaka teaches the control unit displays an azimuthal angle indicating a direction in which the angle of incidence is changed, together with the exposure image (paras. [0055-0056]: “a plurality of sets of aligners are disposed so as to provide bidirectional tilt control in X- and Y-directions to control not only a tilt angle … but also an azimuth angle…both taken into account to define the angle of electron beam incidence.” “The settings for the tilt angle, the azimuth angle, and the timing at which switching is effected between these two angles may be preset to fixed values. An alternative is to let the display section display a GUI that permits the use of user-defined values”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Asghar’s image display to also display the azimuthal angle of the beam tilt, as taught by Tadaka, because displaying the beam-tilt direction together with the acquired image would allow the operator to readily identify and monitor the illumination direction associated with the observed image and facilitate adjustment of the beam-tilt condition.
Claim 8 is rejected Asghar in view of Boureau, further in view of US 2009/0095904A1 [hereinafter Koike] and US 2013/0240728A1 [hereinafter Albiol].
Regarding Claim 8:
Asghar in view of Boureau teaches the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1. However, the combined references do not expressly teach wherein the control unit obtains the exposure image by emitting the electron beam as a pulse based on a periodically emitted trigger signal and changing the angle of incidence from a start angle to an end angle in each section in which the electron beam is emitted as a pulse.
Koike teaches the control unit obtains the exposure image by emitting the electron beam as a pulse based on a periodically emitted trigger signal (paras. [0030]: “the electron beam is emitted from the charged particle beam reflector 20 in a pulse P form with a predetermined cycle”). Koike further teaches coordinates the pulse with its deflector scanning operation (para. [0033]: “The applied voltage to the polarizers 15, 16 is controlled at a timing at which the electron beam (pulse P) is emitted from the charged particle beam reflector 20, in accordance with the pulse width of the electron beam”)
Albiol teaches changing the angle of incidence from a start angle to an end angle (para. [0011]: “applying an incident beam scanning protocol that maintains the beam impinging on substantially the same sample location while varying over time one or both of the incident beam inclination angle and azimuthal angle”). Albiol further teaches the deflector signals are programmable and synchronized (para. [0034]: “the sequence of voltage values delivered from all eight DACs to a TEM may be synchronized at update rates of 192 kHz, in principle allowing the generation of virtually any form of beam scanning protocol incorporating beam displacement and/or beam tilt above or below the sample”).
Koike teaches electron beam emitted in pulses and the beam scan period is synchronized with and made equal to the pulse width. Albiol teaches using electron beam deflectors to perform beam tilt and the incident beam inclination angle is varied over time during the scan. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Koike’s pulse-synchronized beam scan to perform the beam-tilt scan taught by Albiol, to allow the incidence angle to be changed during each of Koike’s beam pulse periods, so that the pulsed irradiation can obtain angular varied information from the same specimen region during each pulse interval.
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
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights