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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Essers et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0154752.
Regarding claim 1, Essers discloses an objective lens cover of a charged particle beam apparatus (“FIG. 11 illustrates a charged particle optical apparatus according to a fifth exemplary embodiment” [0387]), comprising: a conical cover 8b having a shape corresponding to an external shape of an objective lens 7b, on which the objective lens is mounted, and having an opening 81b through which a charged particle beam 6b passes (“the primary particle beam path 6b passes from the first vacuum zone 88b into the interior 5b of the specimen chamber through the differential pressure aperture 81b” [0388]); and an inner cylindrical part inserted into an inside of the conical cover through the opening 81b and having a beam path 6b through which the charged particle beam passes (as illustrated in figure 11), wherein the objective lens cover divides at least two regions with a pressure difference of at least 50 times (“the charged particle optical apparatus, having at least the differential pressure apertures of the third and fourth electrodes, may be configured so that at a vacuum pressure level of 600 Pa in the specimen chamber, the vacuum pressure level in the first vacuum zone is lower than 20 Pa, lower than 10 Pa or lower than 5 Pa, or lower than 1 Pa” [0053]).
PNG
media_image1.png
557
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Essers discloses the conical cover and the inner cylindrical part are airtightly connected (since figure 11 illustrates that the conical cover and the inner cylindrical part are integrally formed from a single piece).
Regarding claim 4, Essers discloses that any one of the two regions is a sample chamber in which a sample is placed, and the other of the two regions is an internal region of the objective lens (“the charged particle optical apparatus, having at least the differential pressure apertures of the third and fourth electrodes, may be configured so that at a vacuum pressure level of 600 Pa in the specimen chamber, the vacuum pressure level in the first vacuum zone is lower than 20 Pa, lower than 10 Pa or lower than 5 Pa, or lower than 1 Pa” [0053]).
Regarding claim 8, Essers discloses that the inner cylindrical part extends to be airtightly sealed with an objective lens cylindrical part, through which the charged particle beam passes, in the objective lens (“the sealing element 83 surrounds the primary particle beam path 6. The sealing element 83 may be an O-ring. The O-ring may be made of Viton. The sealing element 83 is pressed against the second electrode 75 (illustrated in FIG. 1) of the objective lens 7” [0243] – see also figure 11).
Regarding claim 9, Essers discloses a sealing member 83, wherein the sealing member connects the inner cylindrical part to the objective lens cylindrical part to be airtightly sealed (“the sealing element 83 surrounds the primary particle beam path 6. The sealing element 83 may be an O-ring. The O-ring may be made of Viton. The sealing element 83 is pressed against the second electrode 75 (illustrated in FIG. 1) of the objective lens 7” [0243] – see also figure 11).
Regarding claim 10, Essers discloses a charged particle beam apparatus comprising: a charged particle source; one or more condenser lenses 4 configured to focus a charged particle beam (“The particle optical arrangement may include further components such as a condenser lens and/or a particle gun” [0017]); an objective lens 7b configured to irradiate a sample with the charged particle beam (“The particle optical arrangement may further be configured to generate an objective lens field for focusing the primary particle beam onto the object” [0009]); a detector configured to detect secondary electrons formed from the sample (“A particle detector is configured for detecting emitted particles, which are emitted from the object and which pass through the differential pressure aperture of the third electrode” [Abstract]); a conical cover 8b having a shape corresponding to an external shape of an objective lens 7b, on which the objective lens is mounted, and having an opening 81b through which a charged particle beam 6b passes (“the primary particle beam path 6b passes from the first vacuum zone 88b into the interior 5b of the specimen chamber through the differential pressure aperture 81b” [0388]); and an inner cylindrical part inserted into an inside of the conical cover through the opening 81b and having a beam path 6b through which the charged particle beam passes (as illustrated in figure 11), wherein the objective lens cover divides at least two regions with a pressure difference of at least 50 times (“the charged particle optical apparatus, having at least the differential pressure apertures of the third and fourth electrodes, may be configured so that at a vacuum pressure level of 600 Pa in the specimen chamber, the vacuum pressure level in the first vacuum zone is lower than 20 Pa, lower than 10 Pa or lower than 5 Pa, or lower than 1 Pa” [0053]).
Regarding claim 12, Essers discloses the conical cover and the inner cylindrical part are airtightly connected (since figure 11 illustrates that the conical cover and the inner cylindrical part are integrally formed from a single piece).
Regarding claim 13, Essers discloses that any one of the two regions is a sample chamber in which a sample is placed, and the other of the two regions is an internal region of the objective lens (“the charged particle optical apparatus, having at least the differential pressure apertures of the third and fourth electrodes, may be configured so that at a vacuum pressure level of 600 Pa in the specimen chamber, the vacuum pressure level in the first vacuum zone is lower than 20 Pa, lower than 10 Pa or lower than 5 Pa, or lower than 1 Pa” [0053]).
Regarding claim 18, Essers discloses that the inner cylindrical part extends to be airtightly sealed with an objective lens cylindrical part, through which the charged particle beam passes, in the objective lens (“the sealing element 83 surrounds the primary particle beam path 6. The sealing element 83 may be an O-ring. The O-ring may be made of Viton. The sealing element 83 is pressed against the second electrode 75 (illustrated in FIG. 1) of the objective lens 7” [0243] – see also figure 11).
Regarding claim 19, Essers discloses a sealing member 83, wherein the sealing member connects the inner cylindrical part to the objective lens cylindrical part to be airtightly sealed (“the sealing element 83 surrounds the primary particle beam path 6. The sealing element 83 may be an O-ring. The O-ring may be made of Viton. The sealing element 83 is pressed against the second electrode 75 (illustrated in FIG. 1) of the objective lens 7” [0243] – see also figure 11).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Essers et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0154752.
Regarding claim 5, Essers discloses the claimed invention except that while Essers teaches that “the differential pressure apertures of the third and fourth electrodes, may be configured so that at a vacuum pressure level of 600 Pa in the specimen chamber, the vacuum pressure level in the first vacuum zone is… lower than 1 Pa” [0053] and that “the invention is concerned with a scanning electron microscope capable of operating efficiently at a high-vacuum pressure level” [0001], there is no explicit disclosure that any one of the two regions is maintained at the claimed vacuum degree. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain any one of the two regions at the claimed vacuum degree since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to maintain any one of the two regions at the claimed vacuum degree for the purpose of ensuring that an electron microscopy image having desired resolution is formed (where it is desired that the electron travel through a high vacuum environment so as to travel unimpeded through the electron-optical device) while ensuring protection for a sample in a specimen chamber, where certain samples may be sensitive to lower pressures and it would be desirable to maintain a higher pressure in the region surrounding the sample so as to maintain sample integrity during imaging in an electron microscope. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 15, Essers discloses the claimed invention except that while Essers teaches that “the differential pressure apertures of the third and fourth electrodes, may be configured so that at a vacuum pressure level of 600 Pa in the specimen chamber, the vacuum pressure level in the first vacuum zone is… lower than 1 Pa” [0053] and that “the invention is concerned with a scanning electron microscope capable of operating efficiently at a high-vacuum pressure level” [0001], there is no explicit disclosure that any one of the two regions is maintained at the claimed vacuum degree. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain any one of the two regions at the claimed vacuum degree since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to maintain any one of the two regions at the claimed vacuum degree for the purpose of ensuring that an electron microscopy image having desired resolution is formed (where it is desired that the electron travel through a high vacuum environment so as to travel unimpeded through the electron-optical device) while ensuring protection for a sample in a specimen chamber, where certain samples may be sensitive to lower pressures and it would be desirable to maintain a higher pressure in the region surrounding the sample so as to maintain sample integrity during imaging in an electron microscope. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Essers et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0154752 in view of Storeck WIPO Publication WO 2023/160874A1.
Regarding claim 6, Essers discloses the claimed invention except that while Essers expresses that outgassing is undesirable (see paragraph [0003]) there is no explicit disclosure that the conical cover is made of a material that does not emit gas into either of the two regions.
Storeck discloses an electron microscope apparatus and teaches that, in such an apparatus, “A known and successful measure for preventing this contamination is the use of materials in the vacuum chamber which do not outgas or hardly outgas carbon” [page 3; lines 15-17].
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Essers with the material of Storeck in order to prevent outgassing, thereby providing greater control and maintenance over desired vacuum levels and in order to prevent contamination which may otherwise deteriorate image quality in an electron microscope.
Regarding claim 16, Essers discloses the claimed invention except that while Essers expresses that outgassing is undesirable (see paragraph [0003]) there is no explicit disclosure that the conical cover is made of a material that does not emit gas into either of the two regions.
Storeck discloses an electron microscope apparatus and teaches that, in such an apparatus, “A known and successful measure for preventing this contamination is the use of materials in the vacuum chamber which do not outgas or hardly outgas carbon” [page 3; lines 15-17].
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Essers with the material of Storeck in order to prevent outgassing, thereby providing greater control and maintenance over desired vacuum levels and in order to prevent contamination which may otherwise deteriorate image quality in an electron microscope.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7, 11, 14, and 17 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.
Regarding claim 2; Essers et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0154752 discloses an objective lens cover of a charged particle beam apparatus (“FIG. 11 illustrates a charged particle optical apparatus according to a fifth exemplary embodiment” [0387]), comprising: a conical cover 8b having a shape corresponding to an external shape of an objective lens 7b, on which the objective lens is mounted, and having an opening 81b through which a charged particle beam 6b passes (“the primary particle beam path 6b passes from the first vacuum zone 88b into the interior 5b of the specimen chamber through the differential pressure aperture 81b” [0388]); and an inner cylindrical part inserted into an inside of the conical cover through the opening 81b and having a beam path 6b through which the charged particle beam passes (as illustrated in figure 11), wherein the objective lens cover divides at least two regions with a pressure difference of at least 50 times (“the charged particle optical apparatus, having at least the differential pressure apertures of the third and fourth electrodes, may be configured so that at a vacuum pressure level of 600 Pa in the specimen chamber, the vacuum pressure level in the first vacuum zone is lower than 20 Pa, lower than 10 Pa or lower than 5 Pa, or lower than 1 Pa” [0053]). However, in Essers the conical cover and the inner cylindrical part are integrally formed and there is no explicit disclosure that the conical cover and the inner cylindrical part are airtightly welded.
Gosen et al. U.S. PGPB No. 2020/0176215 discloses an objective lens assembly wherein portions of the assembly are connected by welding (“at least a portion of bobbin 320 may be coupled to a portion of outer wall 314, or a portion of inner wall 312, or other portions of objective lens housing 310 by welding” [0049]). However, Gosen does not disclose that a conical cover, having a shape corresponding to an external shape of an objective lens, is airtightly welded to an inner cylindrical part that is inserted into an inside of the conical cover through which a charged particle beam passes.
The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, an objective lens cover of a charged particle beam apparatus, comprising: a conical cover, having a shape corresponding to an external shape of an objective lens, is airtightly welded to an inner cylindrical part that is inserted into an inside of the conical cover through which a charged particle beam passes; wherein the objective lens cover divides at least two regions with a pressure difference of at least 50 times.
Regarding claim 7; Essers et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0154752 discloses an objective lens cover of a charged particle beam apparatus (“FIG. 11 illustrates a charged particle optical apparatus according to a fifth exemplary embodiment” [0387]), comprising: a conical cover 8b having a shape corresponding to an external shape of an objective lens 7b, on which the objective lens is mounted, and having an opening 81b through which a charged particle beam 6b passes (“the primary particle beam path 6b passes from the first vacuum zone 88b into the interior 5b of the specimen chamber through the differential pressure aperture 81b” [0388]); and an inner cylindrical part inserted into an inside of the conical cover through the opening 81b and having a beam path 6b through which the charged particle beam passes (as illustrated in figure 11), wherein the objective lens cover divides at least two regions with a pressure difference of at least 50 times (“the charged particle optical apparatus, having at least the differential pressure apertures of the third and fourth electrodes, may be configured so that at a vacuum pressure level of 600 Pa in the specimen chamber, the vacuum pressure level in the first vacuum zone is lower than 20 Pa, lower than 10 Pa or lower than 5 Pa, or lower than 1 Pa” [0053]). However, although Essers discloses a seal 83, Essers does not disclose a flange configured to extend outward from the conical cover and having a knife edge, wherein the knife edge is coupled to a sealing member and engaged with any one of the two regions.
The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, an objective lens cover of a charged particle beam apparatus, comprising: a flange configured to extend outward from a conical cover having a shape corresponding to an external shape of an objective lens and the flange having a knife edge, wherein the knife edge is coupled to a sealing member and engaged with any one of the two regions divided by the objective lens cover such that the at least two regions have a pressure difference of at least 50 times.
Regarding claim 11; claim 11 includes substantially similar limitations to those of claim 2 and would be allowable at least for the reasons indicated with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 14; Essers et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0154752 discloses an objective lens cover of a charged particle beam apparatus (“FIG. 11 illustrates a charged particle optical apparatus according to a fifth exemplary embodiment” [0387]), comprising: a conical cover 8b having a shape corresponding to an external shape of an objective lens 7b, on which the objective lens is mounted, and having an opening 81b through which a charged particle beam 6b passes (“the primary particle beam path 6b passes from the first vacuum zone 88b into the interior 5b of the specimen chamber through the differential pressure aperture 81b” [0388]); and an inner cylindrical part inserted into an inside of the conical cover through the opening 81b and having a beam path 6b through which the charged particle beam passes (as illustrated in figure 11), wherein the objective lens cover divides at least two regions with a pressure difference of at least 50 times (“the charged particle optical apparatus, having at least the differential pressure apertures of the third and fourth electrodes, may be configured so that at a vacuum pressure level of 600 Pa in the specimen chamber, the vacuum pressure level in the first vacuum zone is lower than 20 Pa, lower than 10 Pa or lower than 5 Pa, or lower than 1 Pa” [0053]). However, Essers only discloses a single pump (“The vacuum ports may be in fluid communication with a vacuum source. The vacuum source may include a vacuum pump” [0025]) and does not disclose that the sample chamber and the internal region of the objective lens are maintained at different pressures by separate pumps.
Danilatos et al. U.S. Patent No. 4,823,006 discloses and electron microscope with a plurality of pumps for maintaining a pressure within an objective lens (“A desired level of vacuum is maintained within the housing by means of vacuum pumps (not shown). In order to connect each vacuum chamber or interior passage to its external pumping system, the objective lens magnetic housing 14 has been specially perforated with a number of ports 45 and 46 axially distanced from one another” [col. 6; lines 10-16]). However, there is no explicit disclosure of a separate pump that maintains the pressure within the sample chamber.
The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, a charged particle beam apparatus comprising: a conical cover having a shape corresponding to an external shape of the objective lens; and an inner cylindrical part inserted into an inside of the conical cover through an opening through which the charged particle beam passes, wherein the objective lens cover divides a sample chamber in which the sample is placed and an internal region of the objective lens with a pressure difference of at least 50 times; wherein the sample chamber and the internal region of the objective lens are maintained at different pressures by separate pumps.
Regarding claim 17; claim 17 includes substantially similar limitations to those of claim 7 and would be allowable at least for the reasons indicated with respect to claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-1489. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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.
/JASON L MCCORMACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights