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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined herein.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) Paragraph 0081 states "FIG. 700 shows table clamp 760 next to the cryostat 750 for mounting to table 795." There is no FIG. 700. It appears that FIG. 7A was intended.
(2) Paragraph 0088 states that the lowest vibration amplitudes are "4.5 nm and 2 nm," measured at and near cryostat 750. Table 1 and FIG. 9 report 4.8 nm for cryostat 750.
(3) Paragraph 0094 refers to "foot 510a on cryocooler 510 shown in FIG. 5B." Reference numeral 510 is not otherwise identified as a cryocooler; the cryocooler of setup 700 is cryocooler 710 (¶ 0078). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 and 20 are objected to because of the following informality: the abbreviation "nm" in "nm-scale" is not defined in the claims. The abbreviation should be spelled out at its first occurrence in each independent claim (e.g., "nanometer (nm)-scale"). Claims 1 and 20 are each objected to on this basis independently; claims 2-5 recite the abbreviation directly.
Claim 16 is objected to because the abbreviation "3D" should be spelled out at its first occurrence (e.g., "three-dimensionally (3D) printed"). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 sub-system for recycling the cryogenic fluid" in claim 11. The term "sub-system" is a generic placeholder that does not connote a particular structure; it is modified by the functional language "for recycling the cryogenic fluid"; and claim 11 recites no structure for performing that function. The corresponding structure is a return conduit that removes spent cryogen from the cryostat (return hose 40, bellow flex line B2, or cryo line return 770) in fluid communication with a circulating or pumping device (compressor 30, the vacuum pump of FIGS. 2-4, or circulation pump 790) that returns the cryogen for re-pressurization and redistribution to the cryostat (¶ 0011, 0042-0044, 0054, 0062, 0081; figs. 1-4, 7A, 8).
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2: "wherein the system is configured to decrease an amplitude of nm-scale vibrations induced by a coolant supply by greater than 90% before reaching a sample."
Claim 3: "wherein the system is configured to decrease the amplitude of nm-scale vibrations induced by the coolant supply by greater than 99% before reaching the sample."
Claim 4: "wherein the system is configured to decrease an amplitude of nm-scale vibrations induced by a pump by greater than 80% before reaching a sample."
Claim 5: "wherein the system is configured to decrease the amplitude of nm-scale vibrations induced by the pump by greater than 92% before reaching the sample."
Claims 2 and 4 recite these limitations directly. Claims 3 and 5 recite the narrower values directly and incorporate the limitations of claims 2 and 4, respectively. The percentages appear in the Summary (¶ 0009, 0016); the only measurements are those of experimental setup 700 (¶ 0077-0097; Tables 1-4; figs. 7A-9). Each of claims 2-5 defines the invention by a result, namely a percentage reduction in vibration amplitude between a vibration source and a sample, rather than by the structure that produces that result. Through claim 1, the only structure required is a conduit and a support comprising one clamp and one weight. The claims therefore encompass every conduit, clamp, and weight arrangement, with any coolant supply or pump, any conduit length and routing, and any sample location, that achieves the recited reduction.
The specification describes achieving the recited values in a single configuration, setup 700, and the values measured in that setup depend on structure absent from the claims. The 90% reduction is reported at transfer line 740, after the vibrations have passed through two mass-damped arms 730a, 730b (¶ 0089). The greater-than-99% reduction is reported at cryostat 750 mounted on floating optical table 795, that is, after pneumatic mitigation by the table (¶ 0089-0090). The 92% reduction of pump-induced vibration is reported at cryo line return 770 and is attributed to return mass dampener 780 (¶ 0090). The specification further reports that the damping obtained depended on the number of arms (Table 2), on the presence and composition of feet 510a (Table 3: 15.001 nm without feet, versus about 4-8 nm with feet), and on the feet landing surface (Table 4) (¶ 0091-0097). The 80% value of claim 4 appears only in the Summary (¶ 0009, 0016) and is not associated with any measured configuration.
Where a claim is defined by a desired result, the written description must describe a representative number of species, or structural features common to the members of the genus, sufficient to show possession of the genus. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-51 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 2005); MPEP §§ 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(ii), 2173.05(g). A single experimental arrangement that includes two mass-damped arms, a return mass dampener, specific feet, and a pneumatically floating table does not reasonably convey possession of the full genus of single-clamp, single-weight supports that achieve reductions of greater than 80%, 90%, 92%, or 99%. The specification also does not identify which structural features of setup 700 are necessary and sufficient to achieve each recited value.
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 1-20 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 1 recites "wherein the support dampens nm-scale vibrations." Claims 2-5 recite "nm-scale vibrations induced by a coolant supply" or "induced by a pump." Claim 20 recites "dampening nm-scale vibration in the cooling system." The term "nm-scale" is a term of degree, and the specification provides no standard for determining whether a vibration is "nm-scale." The specification states that most damping techniques are effective only on "larger scale vibrations that are at least tens of nm in amplitude" (¶ 0007), suggesting that vibrations of tens of nanometers are not "nm-scale," and it gives as examples an "extremely small amplitude (e.g., 5 nm amplitude or even 1 nm amplitude)" (¶ 0047). Yet the specification also treats source vibrations of 1712 nm and 2093 nm RMS, which are micrometer-level amplitudes, as the "nm-scale vibrations" that the system reduces (¶ 0088-0090; Table 1; fig. 9). One of ordinary skill therefore cannot determine the upper or lower bound of the amplitudes that are "nm-scale," and cannot determine whether a support that damps, for example, 50 nm or 1 µm vibrations falls within the claims. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014); Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Claim 2 recites "configured to decrease an amplitude of nm-scale vibrations induced by a coolant supply by greater than 90% before reaching a sample"; claim 3 recites "by greater than 99% before reaching the sample"; claim 4 recites "configured to decrease an amplitude of nm-scale vibrations induced by a pump by greater than 80% before reaching a sample"; and claim 5 recites "by greater than 92% before reaching the sample." The claims do not identify (i) where the reference amplitude "induced by a coolant supply" or "induced by a pump" is measured (at the source, at the conduit inlet, or elsewhere); (ii) where the reduced amplitude is measured "before reaching a sample"; (iii) the axis or direction of measurement; (iv) whether the amplitude is peak, peak-to-peak, or RMS; or (v) the frequency band over which the amplitude is computed. The specification reports RMS values computed by integrating a noise density from 500 Hz down to an unspecified lower frequency f (¶ 0084-0085), measured in the lateral x direction (¶ 0087), and notes measurements in other directions with modified setups (¶ 0091). Different measurement points yield materially different percentages for the same structure and the same source; for example, the specification reports a 90% reduction at transfer line 740 and a greater-than-99% reduction at cryostat 750 for vibrations originating at cryocooler 710 (¶ 0089). Because the result depends on which measurement approach is used and the claims and specification do not specify one, the boundaries of claims 2-5 cannot be determined. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Claims 2 and 4 recite "before reaching a sample," and claims 3 and 5 recite "before reaching the sample." Claim 20 recites in its preamble "[a] method of cooling a sample for testing using a cooling system" and in its body "supplying a cryogenic fluid to a cooling target via a conduit." Claim 1, from which claims 2 and 4 depend, recites "a cooling target," not a sample. It is unclear whether "a sample" in claims 2 and 4 is the cooling target, a part of it, or a separate element, and whether the sample is a positively recited element of the claimed cooling system or merely a reference location. In claim 20, the body never recites cooling the sample or any testing, and it is unclear whether "a cooling target" is the sample or a different component. MPEP §§ 2111.02, 2173.05(b). For purposes of applying prior art, "a sample" is interpreted as the object that is measured or tested with the aid of the cooling system and that is located at, or adjacent to, the cooling target (compare ¶ 0038, 0045).
Claims 5-19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 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, 11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arai (US 6,265,721 B1).
In regard to claim 1, Arai teaches a cooling system (gas-circulation refrigeration system of EDS detector 3: compressor 17, valve unit 18, piping 19, 20, connecting pipe 21, pulse tube refrigerator 5) comprising:
a conduit (connecting pipe 21: rigid portion 21a, flexible portion 21b) configured to carry a cryogenic fluid (helium refrigerant) to a cooling target (refrigerator body 5a in cryostat 4, cooling x-ray detecting element 8) (col. 3, ll. 17-44; col. 4, ll. 15-31; figs. 1-2);
a support (vibration-proofing stand 22 with fixing members 23, together with vibration-proofing weights 24) supporting the conduit, wherein the support comprises (col. 4, ll. 31-43; figs. 1, 3):
a first clamp (fixing member, or coupler, 23 that fixedly holds pipe body portion 21a against stand 22) for clamping the conduit in place (col. 4, ll. 31-39; fig. 1); and
a first weight (heavily weighted base member of stand 22) for dampening vibrations in the conduit (col. 4, ll. 34-39; col. 5, ll. 64-67 (claim 2); fig. 1), wherein the support dampens nm-scale vibrations (pipe vibration eliminated so that none is transferred to cryostat 4, detecting element 8, or electron microscope 1) (col. 2, ll. 8-15, 37-45; col. 4, l. 60 – col. 5, l. 5).
A support that eliminates the vibration transmitted along the pipe necessarily damps the components of that vibration whose amplitudes are on a nanometer scale. MPEP § 2112.
In regard to claim 6, Arai teaches the cooling system of claim 1 wherein the support further comprises: a second clamp (hinged plastic case 26 with lock mechanism 28, clamped onto flexible portion 21b) for clamping the conduit in place; and a second weight (lead weight body 27 of vibration-proofing weight 24) for dampening vibrations in the conduit (col. 4, ll. 39-55; col. 6, ll. 1-7 (claims 3-4); col. 7, l. 8 – col. 8, l. 6 (claims 10-11); figs. 1, 3). Arai further teaches fixing pipe body portion 21a by couplers 23 at a plurality of spaced locations and mounting two weights 24 at spaced locations on flexible portion 21b (col. 4, ll. 37-43; fig. 1).
In regard to claim 9, Arai teaches the cooling system of claim 1 wherein the first weight (heavily weighted base member of stand 22) is vibrationally connected to a floor on which the cooling system rests (stand 22 erected near holding base 2, its weighted base resting on the floor on which compressor 17 and holding base 2 also rest) (col. 4, ll. 31-37; fig. 1).
In regard to claim 11, Arai teaches the cooling system of claim 1 further comprising a sub-system for recycling the cryogenic fluid (compressor 17 connected to pressure converting valve unit 18 through high-pressure helium piping 19 and low-pressure helium piping 20, which returns the helium of the gas-circulation-type refrigerator to the compressor and resupplies it through connecting pipe 21) (col. 1, ll. 16-19; col. 4, ll. 15-25; fig. 1; see also compressor 51 and piping 49, 50 at col. 1, ll. 59-67 and fig. 4).
In regard to claim 16, Arai teaches the cooling system of claim 1 wherein the first clamp (fixing member 23) is 3D printed. The limitation is a product-by-process limitation. Arai's fixing member fixedly holds the connecting pipe against the stand (col. 4, ll. 31-39; fig. 1). Neither claim 16 nor the specification identifies a structural feature imparted by 3D printing; the specification states only that the clamp shape may be formed, for example, by 3D printing (¶ 0059, 0076). The fixing member of Arai reasonably appears to be the same as the claimed clamp, and the burden shifts to Applicant to establish a nonobvious structural difference. MPEP § 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In regard to claim 17, Arai teaches a measurement system (energy-dispersive-type element analyzer comprising scanning electron microscope 1, EDS detector 3, and controller 29) comprising the cooling system of claim 1 (col. 3, ll. 6-16; col. 4, ll. 56-59; fig. 1).
In regard to claim 18, Arai teaches the measurement system of claim 17 comprising an analytical device (EDS detector 3 with x-ray detecting element 8, which measures characteristic x-rays excited by the electron beam and emitted from the specimen) for performing at least one of Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS or EDX), X-ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (XRF), X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS or ESCA), Extended X-ray Absorption Fine Structure (EXAFS), X-ray Absorption Near Edge Structure (XANES), X-ray Emission Spectroscopy (XES), and X-ray Diffraction (XRD) (energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy; the detector is also used in fluorescence x-ray analyzers) (col. 1, ll. 5-19; col. 3, ll. 37-44; figs. 1-2).
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.
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 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 6,265,721 B1) in view of Bazaj (US 4,745,761).
In regard to claim 2, Arai teaches the cooling system of claim 1 as set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 above. Arai teaches a coolant supply (compressor 17 and pressure converting valve unit 18, which supply the helium pressure wave through connecting pipe 21) (col. 4, ll. 15-25) and a sample (specimen on the specimen stage within electron microscope 1, to which x-ray detecting element portion 7 is moved adjacent), wherein the system is configured to decrease an amplitude of nm-scale vibrations induced by the coolant supply before reaching the sample (vibration of connecting pipe 21 caused by the helium pressure wave eliminated so that no vibration is transferred to cryostat 4 or electron microscope 1), the weight and the number of the weights being selectable (col. 2, ll. 8-15; col. 3, l. 65 – col. 4, l. 5; col. 4, l. 60 – col. 5, l. 5; col. 5, ll. 18-25; figs. 1-2).
Arai does not teach that the system is configured to decrease the amplitude by greater than 90%.
However, Bazaj teaches a cryogenic cooling system for a sensitive detector in which vibration of the cryogenic refrigerator is damped by damping masses (35) joined through elastomer interfaces (31, 34, 38), and teaches that the degree of vibration damping may be controlled by selecting the masses, the spring and damping constants, and the number of springs or elastomer layers, so as to produce a vibration-free, essentially motionless support for the detector, and that more than one vibration sink and different masses may be used (col. 1, ll. 35-49; col. 2, ll. 19-65; col. 3, ll. 13-19; figs. 1-2; col. 3, l. 21 – col. 4, l. 20 (claim 1)). Bazaj thus recognizes the degree of vibration attenuation as a result-effective variable controlled by the selection of the damping masses.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling system of Arai to include damping masses whose mass and number are selected to control the degree of vibration damping, as taught by Bazaj, in order to produce a vibration-free, essentially motionless support for the sensitive detector (Bazaj, col. 1, ll. 35-49; col. 2, ll. 31-34, 53-58), and to have optimized that degree of damping through routine experimentation to decrease the coolant supply-induced amplitude by greater than 90% before it reaches the sample. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Arai seeks to eliminate the vibration transferred to the cryostat and the electron microscope and expressly leaves the weight and number of the weights to be selected (Arai, col. 2, ll. 20-24; col. 5, ll. 18-35). 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. See MPEP §§ 2143(I)(C), 2144.05(II); KSR, 550 U.S. 398.
In regard to claim 3, Arai in view of Bazaj teaches the cooling system of claim 2, wherein Arai teaches the coolant supply (compressor 17 and pressure converting valve unit 18) (col. 4, ll. 15-25) and a sample (specimen on the specimen stage within electron microscope 1, to which x-ray detecting element portion 7 is moved adjacent), wherein the system is configured to decrease an amplitude of nm-scale vibrations induced by the coolant supply before reaching the sample (vibration of connecting pipe 21 caused by the helium pressure wave eliminated so that no vibration is transferred to cryostat 4 or electron microscope 1), the weight and the number of the weights being selectable (col. 2, ll. 8-15; col. 3, l. 65 – col. 4, l. 5; col. 4, l. 60 – col. 5, l. 5; col. 5, ll. 18-25; figs. 1-2).
Arai does not teach that the system is configured to decrease the amplitude by greater than 99%.
However, Bazaj teaches a cryogenic cooling system for a sensitive detector in which vibration of the cryogenic refrigerator is damped by damping masses (35) joined through elastomer interfaces (31, 34, 38), and teaches that the degree of vibration damping may be controlled by selecting the masses, the spring and damping constants, and the number of springs or elastomer layers, so as to produce a vibration-free, essentially motionless support for the detector, and that more than one vibration sink and different masses may be used (col. 1, ll. 35-49; col. 2, ll. 19-65; col. 3, ll. 13-19; figs. 1-2; col. 3, l. 21 – col. 4, l. 20 (claim 1)). Bazaj thus recognizes the degree of vibration attenuation as a result-effective variable controlled by the selection of the damping masses.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling system of Arai to include damping masses whose mass and number are selected to control the degree of vibration damping, as taught by Bazaj, in order to produce a vibration-free, essentially motionless support for the sensitive detector (Bazaj, col. 1, ll. 35-49; col. 2, ll. 31-34, 53-58), and to have optimized that degree of damping through routine experimentation to decrease the coolant supply-induced amplitude by greater than 99% before it reaches the sample. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Arai seeks to eliminate the vibration transferred to the cryostat and the electron microscope and expressly leaves the weight and number of the weights to be selected (Arai, col. 2, ll. 20-24; col. 5, ll. 18-35).
In regard to claim 4, Arai teaches the cooling system of claim 1 as set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 above. Arai teaches a pump (compressor 17, which pumps helium through high-pressure and low-pressure piping 19, 20 to valve unit 18) (col. 4, ll. 15-20) and a sample (specimen on the specimen stage within electron microscope 1, to which x-ray detecting element portion 7 is moved adjacent), wherein the system is configured to decrease an amplitude of nm-scale vibrations induced by the pump before reaching the sample (vibration of connecting pipe 21 caused by the helium pressure wave eliminated so that no vibration is transferred to cryostat 4 or electron microscope 1), the weight and the number of the weights being selectable (col. 2, ll. 8-15; col. 3, l. 65 – col. 4, l. 5; col. 4, l. 60 – col. 5, l. 5; col. 5, ll. 18-25; figs. 1-2).
Arai does not teach that the system is configured to decrease the amplitude by greater than 80%.
However, Bazaj teaches a cryogenic cooling system for a sensitive detector in which vibration of the cryogenic refrigerator is damped by damping masses (35) joined through elastomer interfaces (31, 34, 38), and teaches that the degree of vibration damping may be controlled by selecting the masses, the spring and damping constants, and the number of springs or elastomer layers, so as to produce a vibration-free, essentially motionless support for the detector, and that more than one vibration sink and different masses may be used (col. 1, ll. 35-49; col. 2, ll. 19-65; col. 3, ll. 13-19; figs. 1-2; col. 3, l. 21 – col. 4, l. 20 (claim 1)). Bazaj thus recognizes the degree of vibration attenuation as a result-effective variable controlled by the selection of the damping masses.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling system of Arai to include damping masses whose mass and number are selected to control the degree of vibration damping, as taught by Bazaj, in order to produce a vibration-free, essentially motionless support for the sensitive detector, and to have optimized that degree of damping through routine experimentation to decrease the pump-induced amplitude by greater than 80% before it reaches the sample. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Arai seeks to eliminate the vibration transferred to the cryostat and the electron microscope and expressly leaves the weight and number of the weights to be selected (Arai, col. 2, ll. 20-24; col. 5, ll. 18-35). 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. See MPEP §§ 2143(I)(C).
In regard to claim 5, Arai in view of Bazaj teaches the cooling system of claim 4, wherein Arai teaches the pump (compressor 17) (col. 4, ll. 15-20) and a sample (specimen on the specimen stage within electron microscope 1, to which x-ray detecting element portion 7 is moved adjacent), wherein the system is configured to decrease an amplitude of nm-scale vibrations induced by the pump before reaching the sample (vibration of connecting pipe 21 caused by the helium pressure wave eliminated so that no vibration is transferred to cryostat 4 or electron microscope 1), the weight and the number of the weights being selectable (col. 2, ll. 8-15; col. 3, l. 65 – col. 4, l. 5; col. 4, l. 60 – col. 5, l. 5; col. 5, ll. 18-25; figs. 1-2).
Arai does not teach that the system is configured to decrease the amplitude by greater than 92%.
However, Bazaj teaches a cryogenic cooling system for a sensitive detector in which vibration of the cryogenic refrigerator is damped by damping masses (35) joined through elastomer interfaces (31, 34, 38), and teaches that the degree of vibration damping may be controlled by selecting the masses, the spring and damping constants, and the number of springs or elastomer layers, so as to produce a vibration-free, essentially motionless support for the detector, and that more than one vibration sink and different masses may be used (col. 1, ll. 35-49; col. 2, ll. 19-65; col. 3, ll. 13-19; figs. 1-2; col. 3, l. 21 – col. 4, l. 20 (claim 1)). Bazaj thus recognizes the degree of vibration attenuation as a result-effective variable controlled by the selection of the damping masses.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling system of Arai to include damping masses whose mass and number are selected to control the degree of vibration damping, as taught by Bazaj, in order to produce a vibration-free, essentially motionless support for the sensitive detector (Bazaj, col. 1, ll. 35-49; col. 2, ll. 31-34, 53-58), and to have optimized that degree of damping through routine experimentation to decrease the pump-induced amplitude by greater than 92% before it reaches the sample.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 6,265,721 B1) in view of Tugal (US 4,835,972).
In regard to claim 7, Arai teaches the cooling system of claim 6, including the first weight (heavily weighted base member of stand 22, to which rigid body portion 21a is fixed) and the second weight (lead weight body 27 of weight 24, clamped onto flexible portion 21b) (col. 4, ll. 31-55; figs. 1, 3).
Arai does not teach wherein the first weight is vibrationally isolated from the second weight.
However, Tugal teaches a flexible pressure line (80) that carries helium to and from a cryogenic refrigerator and includes a vibration isolator (78) connected in series with the line, the isolator having a bellows whose corrugations are filled with, and surrounded by, vibration damping material (82), so that vibration translated along the line is minimized (col. 2, ll. 44-61; col. 6, ll. 34-67; col. 7, ll. 12-15; fig. 7; col. 8, ll. 37-54 (claims 13-14)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling system of Arai to include a bellows vibration isolator filled with damping material connected in series in the connecting pipe between the rigid portion held by the weighted stand and the flexible portion carrying the clamp-on weights, as taught by Tugal, so that the weighted base and the clamp-on weights are joined only through the damped isolator, in order to minimize vibration translated along the line and thereby reduce the vibration ultimately transmitted to the vibration-sensitive equipment (Tugal, col. 6, ll. 34-41; col. 7, ll. 12-15).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 6,265,721 B1) in view of Shichi (US 2019/0295802 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Arai teaches the cooling system of claim 1, including the first weight (heavily weighted base member of stand 22) (col. 4, ll. 31-39; fig. 1).
Arai does not teach wherein the first weight is vibrationally isolated from a floor on which the cooling system rests.
However, Shichi teaches a charged-particle instrument cooled by a helium refrigerator whose compressor, installed on the floor, transmits vibration through the floor, in which the base plate (118) carrying the ion source, column, and sample chamber is supported on an apparatus stand (137) through a vibration isolation mechanism (119) formed of vibration isolation rubber, springs, dampers, or a combination thereof, and in which the helium pipes are vibration-insulated from the floor, so that floor vibration from the compressor is hardly transmitted to the instrument, whose resolution is on the order of 0.1 nm to 1 nm (¶ 0009, 0037-0039, 0088, 0090; figs. 1, 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling system of Arai to include a vibration isolation mechanism of vibration isolation rubber, springs, or dampers between the weighted base of the stand and the floor as taught by Shichi, in order to make it difficult for floor vibration, such as vibration of the helium compressor transmitted through the floor, to be transmitted to the supported components (Shichi, ¶ 0038, 0090).
In regard to claim 10, Arai teaches the cooling system of claim 6, including the second weight (lead weight body 27 of weight 24, clamped onto flexible portion 21b, which extends between stand 22 and cryostat 4 mounted on electron microscope 1 over holding base 2) (col. 3, ll. 6-16; col. 4, ll. 21-55; figs. 1, 3).
Arai does not teach wherein the second weight is vibrationally isolated from a floor on which the cooling system rests.
However, Shichi teaches a charged-particle instrument cooled by a helium refrigerator whose compressor, installed on the floor, transmits vibration through the floor, in which the base plate (118) carrying the ion source, column, and sample chamber is supported on an apparatus stand (137) through a vibration isolation mechanism (119) formed of vibration isolation rubber, springs, dampers, or a combination thereof, and in which the helium pipes are vibration-insulated from the floor, so that floor vibration from the compressor is hardly transmitted to the instrument, whose resolution is on the order of 0.1 nm to 1 nm (¶ 0009, 0037-0039, 0088, 0090; figs. 1, 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling system of Arai to include vibration isolation mechanisms of vibration isolation rubber, springs, or dampers between the floor and each of the weighted stand and the microscope holding base, so that the clamp-on weight carried by the connecting pipe between them is joined to the floor only through those isolation mechanisms, as taught by Shichi, in order to make it difficult for floor vibration, such as vibration of the helium compressor transmitted through the floor, to be transmitted to the supported components.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 6,265,721 B1) in view of Heiss (US 2016/0123537 A1).
In regard to claim 12, Arai teaches the cooling system of claim 11, including the sub-system for recycling the cryogenic fluid (compressor 17, valve unit 18, and helium piping 19, 20) (col. 4, ll. 15-25; fig. 1).
Arai does not teach wherein the sub-system comprises a vacuum pump and a line to the vacuum pump.
However, Heiss teaches a Joule-Thomson helium circuit for cooling a sample, in which the returning helium is recirculated in a closed loop to the return side of a compressor (42) and resupplied, and in which the circuit employs a vacuum pump (32) connected on the exhaust (return) side to reduce the pressure on the exhaust side and at the sample, lowering the attainable temperature from about 4.2 K to below 3 K (¶ 0018, 0022-0023; figs. 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas-circulation refrigeration sub-system of Arai to include a vacuum pump connected by a line to the exhaust (return) side of the helium circuit as taught by Heiss, in order to reduce the pressure on the return side and thereby reach a lower temperature (Heiss, ¶ 0022).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 6,265,721 B1) in view of Heiss (US 2016/0123537 A1) and further in view of Vuillermoz (US 2005/0204754 A1).
In regard to claim 13, which depends from claim 12, Arai teaches the cooling system of claim 11, including the sub-system for recycling the cryogenic fluid (compressor 17, valve unit 18, and helium piping 19, 20) (col. 4, ll. 15-25; fig. 1).
Arai does not teach (a) wherein the sub-system comprises a vacuum pump and a line to the vacuum pump; and (b) wherein the line to the vacuum pump is coupled to a mass to dampen vibrations.
Regarding (a), Heiss teaches a Joule-Thomson helium circuit for cooling a sample, in which the returning helium is recirculated in a closed loop to the return side of a compressor (42) and resupplied, and in which the circuit employs a vacuum pump (32) connected on the exhaust (return) side to reduce the pressure on the exhaust side and at the sample, lowering the attainable temperature from about 4.2 K to below 3 K (¶ 0018, 0022-0023; figs. 3-4).
Regarding (b), Vuillermoz teaches a vacuum line connecting a vacuum pump to a vibration-sensitive chamber of an electron microscope, in which the vibration generated by the pump is damped by two elastomer-damped bellows placed one after the other in the line and separated by an inertial mass, forming a two-stage filter (¶ 0001-0003, 0008).
Therefore, as to (a), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas-circulation refrigeration sub-system of Arai to include a vacuum pump connected by a line to the exhaust (return) side of the helium circuit as taught by Heiss, in order to reduce the pressure on the return side and thereby reach a lower temperature (Heiss, ¶ 0022).
Therefore, as to (b), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the cooling system of Arai to include, in the line to the vacuum pump, two damped bellows separated by an inertial mass as taught by Vuillermoz, in order to damp the vibration generated by the vacuum pump and transmitted along the line to the vibration-sensitive instrument (Vuillermoz, ¶ 0003, 0005, 0008).
In regard to claim 14, which depends from claim 13, Arai teaches the cooling system of claim 11, including the sub-system for recycling the cryogenic fluid (compressor 17, valve unit 18, and helium piping 19, 20) and the first weight (heavily weighted base member of stand 22) (col. 4, ll. 15-39; fig. 1).
Arai does not teach (a) wherein the sub-system comprises a vacuum pump and a line to the vacuum pump; (b) wherein the line to the vacuum pump is coupled to a mass to dampen vibrations; and (c) wherein the mass is vibrationally de-coupled from the first weight.
Regarding (a), Heiss teaches a Joule-Thomson helium circuit for cooling a sample, in which the returning helium is recirculated in a closed loop to the return side of a compressor (42) and resupplied, and in which the circuit employs a vacuum pump (32) connected on the exhaust (return) side to reduce the pressure on the exhaust side and at the sample, lowering the attainable temperature from about 4.2 K to below 3 K (¶ 0018, 0022-0023; figs. 3-4).
Regarding (b) and (c), Vuillermoz teaches a vacuum line connecting a vacuum pump to a vibration-sensitive chamber of an electron microscope, in which the vibration generated by the pump is damped by two elastomer-damped bellows placed one after the other in the line and separated by an inertial mass, forming a two-stage filter (¶ 0001-0003, 0008). The inertial mass is joined to the pump and to the chamber only through the elastomer-damped bellows on either side of it, and is therefore vibrationally de-coupled from every other body to which the line connects (¶ 0006, 0008).
Therefore, as to (a), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas-circulation refrigeration sub-system of Arai to include a vacuum pump connected by a line to the exhaust (return) side of the helium circuit as taught by Heiss, in order to reduce the pressure on the return side and thereby reach a lower temperature (Heiss, ¶ 0022).
Therefore, as to (b) and (c), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the cooling system of Arai to include, in the line to the vacuum pump, two damped bellows separated by an inertial mass, the mass being joined to the rest of the system only through the damped bellows and thus de-coupled from the weighted stand, as taught by Vuillermoz, in order to damp the vibration generated by the vacuum pump and transmitted along the line to the vibration-sensitive instrument (Vuillermoz, ¶ 0003, 0005, 0008).
In regard to claim 15, which depends from claim 14, Arai teaches the cooling system of claim 11, including the sub-system for recycling the cryogenic fluid (compressor 17, valve unit 18, and helium piping 19, 20), the first weight (heavily weighted base member of stand 22), and the vibration-proofing weights 24 (col. 4, ll. 15-55; figs. 1, 3).
Arai does not teach (a) wherein the sub-system comprises a vacuum pump and a line to the vacuum pump; (b) wherein the line to the vacuum pump is coupled to a mass to dampen vibrations; (c) wherein the mass is vibrationally de-coupled from the first weight; and (d) wherein the mass is vibrationally de-coupled from any other weights in the cooling system.
Regarding (a), Heiss teaches a Joule-Thomson helium circuit for cooling a sample, in which the returning helium is recirculated in a closed loop to the return side of a compressor (42) and resupplied, and in which the circuit employs a vacuum pump (32) connected on the exhaust (return) side to reduce the pressure on the exhaust side and at the sample, lowering the attainable temperature from about 4.2 K to below 3 K (¶ 0018, 0022-0023; figs. 3-4).
Regarding (b), (c), and (d), Vuillermoz teaches a vacuum line connecting a vacuum pump to a vibration-sensitive chamber of an electron microscope, in which the vibration generated by the pump is damped by two elastomer-damped bellows placed one after the other in the line and separated by an inertial mass, forming a two-stage filter (¶ 0001-0003, 0008). The inertial mass is joined to the pump and to the chamber only through the elastomer-damped bellows on either side of it, and is therefore vibrationally de-coupled from every other body to which the line connects (¶ 0006, 0008).
Therefore, as to (a), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas-circulation refrigeration sub-system of Arai to include a vacuum pump connected by a line to the exhaust (return) side of the helium circuit as taught by Heiss, in order to reduce the pressure on the return side and thereby reach a lower temperature (Heiss, ¶ 0022).
Therefore, as to (b), (c), and (d), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the cooling system of Arai to include, in the line to the vacuum pump, two damped bellows separated by an inertial mass, the mass being joined to the rest of the system only through the damped bellows and thus de-coupled from the weighted stand and from every other weight of the system, as taught by Vuillermoz, in order to damp the vibration generated by the vacuum pump and transmitted along the line to the vibration-sensitive instrument (Vuillermoz, ¶ 0003, 0005, 0008).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 6,265,721 B1) in view of Kazumori (US 2002/0024014 A1).
In regard to claim 19, Arai teaches the measurement system of claim 17 (energy-dispersive-type element analyzer comprising scanning electron microscope 1 and EDS detector 3) (col. 3, ll. 6-16; fig. 1).
Arai does not teach an analytical device for performing at least one of Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES), Photoemission Spectroscopy (PES), Inverse Photoelectron Spectroscopy (IPES), Angle-Resolved Photoemission Spectroscopy (ARPES), X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS or ESCA), Electron Energy Loss Spectroscopy (EELS), and Cathodoluminescence Spectroscopy (CL).
However, Kazumori teaches a scanning electron microscope equipped with an x-ray detector and with a cathodoluminescence detector that detects cathodoluminescent light emitted from the specimen, the microscopist selecting among the detectors according to the purpose of the analysis (¶ 0004, 0020, 0038, 0041-0042; figs. 1(a)-1(b)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measurement system of Arai to include a cathodoluminescence detector for detecting cathodoluminescent light emitted from the specimen as taught by Kazumori, in order to permit cathodoluminescence analysis at the same specimen position as the x-ray analysis, with the detector selected according to the purpose (Kazumori, ¶ 0041-0042).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Heiss (US 2016/0123537 A1) in view of Arai (US 6,265,721 B1).
In regard to claim 20, Heiss teaches a method of cooling a sample (test sample cooled by the helium flow, or attached directly on cold tip 66) for testing (cryogenic testing of samples, e.g., in an electron paramagnetic resonance setup) using a cooling system (closed-cycle cryocooler system: cryocooler 10, flexible interface 12, and stinger assembly 14) (¶ 0002, 0007, 0018, 0020, 0025-0026; figs. 1-3, 6), the method comprising:
supplying a cryogenic fluid (helium cooled to about 4 K to 25 K and expanded through a Joule-Thomson device to cold gas or a mixture of cold gas and liquid) to a cooling target (cryostat 16, cold tip 66, and the sample) via a conduit (radially innermost supply tubing of flexible interface 12 and stinger assembly 14) (¶ 0018-0020, 0024, 0026; figs. 3, 5A-5G, 6).
Heiss does not teach dampening nm-scale vibration in the cooling system via a support supporting the conduit, the support comprising a clamp for clamping the conduit in place and a weight for dampening vibrations in the conduit.
However, Arai teaches a support for a helium line that supplies a cryogenic refrigerator cooling an analytical element, the support comprising a vibration-proofing stand (22) having a heavily weighted base, to which the line is fixedly held by fixing members, or couplers, (23) at spaced locations, and weights (24) clamped onto the flexible portion of the line, whereby the vibration of the line is eliminated and no vibration is transferred to the cryostat, the cooled element, or the electron microscope (col. 2, ll. 37-45; col. 4, l. 31 – col. 5, l. 5; col. 6, ll. 1-7; figs. 1, 3). A support that eliminates the vibration transmitted along the line necessarily damps the vibration components whose amplitudes are on a nanometer scale. MPEP § 2112.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling method of Heiss to include supporting the flexible helium interface with a vibration-proofing stand having a heavily weighted base to which the line is fixedly held by fixing members, and with weights clamped onto the flexible line, as taught by Arai, in order to suppress the vibration of the line so that it is not transferred to the cryostat and measurement can be conducted with high precision (Arai, col. 2, ll. 20-24, 37-45; col. 5, ll. 26-35). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Heiss identifies the transmission of cryocooler vibration to the test sample as a drawback of prior closed-cycle systems (Heiss, ¶ 0005) and delivers the cooled helium to the cryostat through a flexible hose (Heiss, ¶ 0018, 0030). See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights