DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 6, 14, 18, and 23 are amended.
Claims 26-29 are new.
Claims 1-29 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (US 20240280515 A1) in view of Schamber (US 20180033589 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Yun discloses an apparatus comprising:
an x-ray source (Figs. 5C, 410) configured to generate an x-ray beam comprising x-rays configured to irradiate an object, the object responsive to the x-rays by generating fluorescence x-rays, the x-ray beam having an energy spectrum with less than 50% of the x-rays of the x-ray beam having energies greater than 1.84 keV.
a plurality of x-ray detection elements configured to receive and detect at least some of the fluorescence x-rays emitted from a surface of the object (310a and 310b) being irradiated by the x-ray beam (120), the plurality of x-ray detection elements comprising:
at least a first x-ray detection element (310a) configured to receive and detect at least a first portion of the fluorescence x-rays emitted at a first emission angle relative to the surface with a first angular acceptance of less than 30 degrees (Abstract: “The x-ray beam includes x-rays and has an angular beam divergence less than 30 mrad in at least one direction.”); and
at least a second x-ray detection element (310b) configured to receive and detect at least a second portion of the fluorescence x-rays emitted at a second emission angle relative to the surface with a second angular acceptance less than 30 degrees(Abstract: “The x-ray beam includes x-rays and has an angular beam divergence less than 30 mrad in at least one direction.”), the second emission angle larger than the first emission angle by at least 0.5 degree
Yun fails to teach the x-ray beam having an energy spectrum with less than 50% of the x-rays of the x-ray beam having energies greater than 1.84 keV.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the x-ray beam such that <50% of the energy exceeds 1.84 keV, given the known scientific principle of the silicon K-edge (1.84 keV) and the well-known goal of minimizing Si fluorescence. It is a straightforward application of standard XRF techniques (adjusting voltage or adding filters) for routine optimization by one skilled in the art. One would be motivated to reduce unwanted Si fluorescence when analyzing structures on silicon substrates.
Yun also fails to explicitly teach the second emission angle larger than the first emission angle by at least 0.5 degree.
Schamber teaches two x-ray detection elements wherein the second emission angle is larger than the first emission angle by at least 0.5 degrees ([0070]: “Detector 942 is positioned with a takeoff angle of about 59 degrees.”; “Detector 941 is positioned around electron beam 932 at a takeoff angle of about 79 degrees”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yun to incorporate the teachings of Schamber and set the detectors such that the second emission angle is larger than the first by at least 0.5 degrees. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to reduce shared geometric or systematic biases.
Regarding Claim 2: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first emission angle is at least one degree (Schamber: [0070]: “Detector 942 is positioned with a takeoff angle of about 59 degrees.”).
Regarding Claim 3: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first emission angle is at least 5 degrees (Schamber: [0070]: “Detector 942 is positioned with a takeoff angle of about 59 degrees.”).
Regarding Claim 4: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first angular acceptance and the second angular acceptance are less than 30 degrees (Schamber: [0070]: “detector 942 collecting X-rays emitted from the sample 902 within plus or minus 9 degrees of the listed takeoff angle”, “detector 941 collecting X-rays emitted from the sample 902 within plus or minus 3 degrees of the listed takeoff angle”).
Regarding Claim 5: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second emission angle is greater than the first emission angle by at least 5 degrees (Schamber: [0070]: “detector 942 collecting X-rays emitted from the sample 902 within plus or minus 9 degrees of the listed takeoff angle”, “detector 941 collecting X-rays emitted from the sample 902 within plus or minus 3 degrees of the listed takeoff angle”).
Regarding Claim 6: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least one x-ray detection element of the plurality of x-ray detection elements is configured to collect fluorescence x-rays emitted from the surface of the object irradiated by the excitation beam over an acceptance angle perpendicular to the first emission angle or the second emission angle, the acceptance angle greater than 1 degree (Schamber: [0070]: “detector 942 collecting X-rays emitted from the sample 902 within plus or minus 9 degrees of the listed takeoff angle”, “detector 941 collecting X-rays emitted from the sample 902 within plus or minus 3 degrees of the listed takeoff angle”).
Regarding Claim 7: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a computer system configured to receive detection signals from the plurality of x-ray detection elements and in response at least to the detection signals to generate depth distribution information of one or more atomic elements in the object (Yun: [0062]: “…the first flat Bragg diffractor 110a configured to diffract the lower energy x-ray fluorescence line can be positioned upstream of the second flat Bragg diffractor 110b configured to diffract the higher energy x-ray fluorescence line. Certain such implementations can enable probing of the depth of the atomic element from a surface of the sample containing the atomic element.”).
Regarding Claim 8: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising at least one Bragg diffractor configured to receive and diffract at least some of the fluorescence x-rays emitted from the object and to direct the diffracted fluorescence x-rays to the plurality of x-ray detection elements (Fig. 5C, flat Bragg diffractors 110; [0067]).
Regarding Claim 9: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the diffracted fluorescence x-rays comprise at least one fluorescence x-ray line that is characteristic of and emitted by at least one atomic element in the object (Yun: [0067]: “…at least two of the flat Bragg diffractors 110 of the longitudinal wavelength dispersive spectrometer of FIG. 5C are configured to measure two specific x-ray energies (e.g., two characteristic x-ray lines)”).
Regarding Claim 10: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the at least one Bragg diffractor is configured to receive the fluorescence x-rays over an emission angular range AO of at least 0.5 degree with respect to the surface of the object with emission angles of at least 0.001 degree (Schamber: [0070]: “Detector 942 is positioned with a takeoff angle of about 59 degrees”; “Detector 941 is positioned around electron beam 932 at a takeoff angle of about 79 degrees”).
Regarding Claim 11: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the at least one Bragg diffractor is selected from the group consisting of: single crystal; mosaic crystal; synthetic multilayer (Yun: [0060]: “The plurality of stacked flat Bragg diffractors 110 of FIGS. 5A-5C comprises a pair of flat crystal diffractors (e.g., first and second flat Bragg diffractors 110a,b; single crystals; mosaic crystals)”).
Regarding Claim 12: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the at least one Bragg diffractor comprises at least one first Bragg diffractor and at least one second Bragg diffractor, the at least one second Bragg diffractor receiving fluorescence x-rays that are transmitted through the at least one first Bragg diffractor (Yun: Fig. 5C).
Regarding Claim 13: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the apparatus of claim 8, further comprising at least one x-ray collimating optic configured to receive and collimate at least some of the fluorescence x-rays and to direct the collimated fluorescence x-rays to impinge the at least one Bragg diffractor (Yun: Fig. 5C, 420).
Regarding Claim 14: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the at least one x-ray collimating optic has an angular range of at least 0.5 degree with respect to the surface of the object with emission angles of at least 0.001 degree (Yun: 420; Schamber: [0070]: “Detector 942 is positioned with a takeoff angle of about 59 degrees”; “Detector 941 is positioned around electron beam 932 at a takeoff angle of about 79 degrees”).
Regarding Claim 15: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the at least one x-ray collimating optic comprises a mirror optic with a reflective surface portion having a paraboloidal shape or a Wolter optic with an infinity image conjugate (Yun: [0054]: “…the at least one collimating x-ray optic 420 comprises a monocapillary optic (e.g., single capillary optic; mirror optic). In certain implementations, an inner functional surface of the monocapillary optic has a paraboloidal shape, ellipsoidal shape, or a combination of a hyperboloidal shape with either a paraboloidal shape or ellipsoidal shape”).
Regarding Claim 16: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein a beam of collimated fluorescence x-rays emitted from the at least one x-ray collimating optic has an angular divergence of less than 3 degrees (Yun: [0052]: “…at least one collimating x-ray optic 420 configured to receive x-rays 124 propagating from the x-ray source 410 and to form the collimated x-ray beam 120 (e.g., having an angular beam divergence less than 30 mrad”; 30 mrad is approx.. 1.72 degrees).
Regarding Claim 17: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the at least one Bragg diffractor comprises a plurality of Bragg diffractors (Yun: Fig. 5C) and the at least one x-ray collimating optic comprises a plurality of x-ray collimating optics (Yun: Fig. 4B) configured to receive and collimate respective portions of the fluorescence x-rays emitted from the surface and to direct the collimated fluorescence x-rays to corresponding Bragg diffractors of the plurality of Bragg diffractors (Yun: Fig. 5C).
Regarding Claim 18: Yun discloses an angle resolved wavelength dispersive spectrometer (100) comprising:
at least one collimating optic (Fig. 5C, 420) configured to receive and collimate fluorescence x-rays emitted by one or more atomic elements of an object at an emission angle of at least 0.001 degree from a surface of the object and over an emission angular range of at least 0.5 degree, the fluorescence x-rays having energies characteristic of the one or more atomic elements of the object;
at least one Bragg diffractor configured to receive and diffract a first set of collimated fluorescence x-rays from the at least one collimating optic (Fig. 5C, 110a-d);
a plurality of x-ray detection elements configured to receive and detect at least some of the diffracted x-rays from the at least one Bragg diffractor (310a and 310b), the plurality of x- ray detection elements comprising:
at least a first x-ray detection element (310a) configured to receive and detect at least a first portion of the fluorescence x-rays diffracted by the at least one Bragg diffractor over a first diffraction angle relative to a surface normal of the at least one Bragg diffractor with a first angular acceptance less than 30 degrees (Abstract: “The x-ray beam includes x-rays and has an angular beam divergence less than 30 mrad in at least one direction.”); and
at least a second x-ray detection element (310b) configured to receive and detect at least a second portion of the fluorescence x-rays diffracted by the at least one Bragg diffractor over a second diffraction angle relative to the surface normal of the at least one Bragg diffractor with a second angular acceptance less than 30 degrees (Abstract: “The x-ray beam includes x-rays and has an angular beam divergence less than 30 mrad in at least one direction.”), the second diffraction angle different from the first diffraction angle by a difference greater than 0.5 degrees, wherein the first x-ray detection element and the second x-ray detection element are configured to provide depth distribution information of one or more atomic elements in the object ([0062]: “…the first flat Bragg diffractor 110a configured to diffract the lower energy x-ray fluorescence line can be positioned upstream of the second flat Bragg diffractor 110b configured to diffract the higher energy x-ray fluorescence line. Certain such implementations can enable probing of the depth of the atomic element from a surface of the sample containing the atomic element.”).
Yun fails to teach an emission angle of at least 0.001 degree from a surface of the object and over an emission angular range of at least 0.5 degree, the fluorescence x-rays having energies characteristic of the one or more atomic elements of the object; and the second diffraction angle different from the first diffraction angle by a difference greater than 0.5 degrees.
Schamber discloses a plurality of x-ray detection elements comprising:
an emission angle of at least 0.001 degree from a surface of the object and over an emission angular range of at least 0.5 degree, the fluorescence x-rays having energies characteristic of the one or more atomic elements of the object ([0070]: “detector 942 collecting X-rays emitted from the sample 902 within plus or minus 9 degrees of the listed takeoff angle”, “detector 941 collecting X-rays emitted from the sample 902 within plus or minus 3 degrees of the listed takeoff angle”).
at least a first x-ray detection element (942) configured to receive and detect at least a first portion of the fluorescence x-rays emitted at a first emission angle relative to the surface with a first angular acceptance of less than 30 degrees ([0070]: “…detector 942 collecting X-rays emitted from the sample 902 within plus or minus 9 degrees of the listed takeoff angle”); and
at least a second x-ray detection element (941) configured to receive and detect at least a second portion of the fluorescence x-rays emitted at a second emission angle relative to the surface with a second angular acceptance less than 30 degrees([0070]: “…detector 941 collecting X-rays emitted from the sample 902 within plus or minus 3 degrees of the listed takeoff angle”), the second emission angle different than the first emission angle by at least 0.5 degree ([0070]: “Detector 942 is positioned with a takeoff angle of about 59 degrees.”; “Detector 941 is positioned around electron beam 932 at a takeoff angle of about 79 degrees”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yun to incorporate the teachings of Schamber such that the second diffraction angle different from the first diffraction angle by a difference greater than 0.5 degrees. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to reduce shared geometric or systematic biases.
Regarding Claim 19: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the spectrometer of claim 18, wherein the emission angle is at least one degree (Schamber: [0070]: “Detector 942 is positioned with a takeoff angle of about 59 degrees.”).
Regarding Claim 20: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the spectrometer of claim 18, wherein the emission angular range is at least 5 degrees (Schamber: [0070]: “Detector 942 is positioned with a takeoff angle of about 59 degrees.”).
Regarding Claim 21: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the spectrometer of claim 18, wherein the first angular acceptance and the second angular acceptance are less than 10 degrees (Schamber: [0070]: “detector 942 collecting X-rays emitted from the sample 902 within plus or minus 9 degrees of the listed takeoff angle”, “detector 941 collecting X-rays emitted from the sample 902 within plus or minus 3 degrees of the listed takeoff angle”).
Regarding Claim 22: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the spectrometer of claim 18, wherein the difference is greater than 5 degrees ([0070]: “Detector 942 is positioned with a takeoff angle of about 59 degrees.”; “Detector 941 is positioned around electron beam 932 at a takeoff angle of about 79 degrees”).
Regarding Claim 23: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the spectrometer of claim 18, further comprising circuitry configured to receive detection signals from the plurality of x-ray detection elements and in response at least to the detection signals to generate the depth distribution information of the one or more atomic elements in the object (Yun: [0062]: “…the first flat Bragg diffractor 110a configured to diffract the lower energy x-ray fluorescence line can be positioned upstream of the second flat Bragg diffractor 110b configured to diffract the higher energy x-ray fluorescence line. Certain such implementations can enable probing of the depth of the atomic element from a surface of the sample containing the atomic element.”).
Regarding Claim 24: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the spectrometer of claim 18, further comprising at least one second Bragg diffractor configured to receive and diffract a second set of fluorescence x-rays characteristic of and emitted by the one or more atomic elements in the object, the at least one second Bragg diffractor receiving the second set of fluorescence x-rays emitted from the object at an emission angle of at least 0.001 degree from the surface of the object and over an emission angular range of at least 0.5 degree (Yun: Fig. 5C; Schamber: [0070]: “Detector 942 is positioned with a takeoff angle of about 59 degrees”, “Detector 941 is positioned around electron beam 932 at a takeoff angle of about 79 degrees”, “detector 942 collecting X-rays emitted from the sample 902 within plus or minus 9 degrees of the listed takeoff angle”, “detector 941 collecting X-rays emitted from the sample 902 within plus or minus 3 degrees of the listed takeoff angle”).
Regarding Claim 25: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the spectrometer of claim 24, wherein the plurality of x-ray detection elements are configured to receive and detect at least some of the diffracted x-rays from the at least one second Bragg diffractor (Yun: Fig. 5C).
Regarding Claim 26: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the x-ray beam has a spot size less than 100 microns at the surface (Yun: [0053]: “…the x-rays 124 propagating from a spot size…less than 30 microns…”).
Regarding Claim 27: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising at least one x-ray collimating optic configured to receive and collimate at least some of the fluorescence x-rays and to direct the collimated fluorescence x-rays to impinge the plurality of x-ray detection elements (Yun: Fig. 5C).
Regarding Claim 28: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the apparatus of claim 27, wherein the at least one x-ray collimating optic comprises a polycapillary optic (Yun: Fig. 4B).
Regarding Claim 29: Yun in view of Schamber discloses the apparatus of claim 28, wherein the polycapillary optic has an angular range of at least 0.5 degree with respect to the surface of the object in an emission plane (Yun: Fig. 4B; Schamber: [0070]: “detector 942 collecting X-rays emitted from the sample 902 within plus or minus 9 degrees of the listed takeoff angle”, “detector 941 collecting X-rays emitted from the sample 902 within plus or minus 3 degrees of the listed takeoff angle”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA DOWNING whose telephone number is (703)756-1840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Makiya can be reached at (571) 272-2273. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MIYA DOWNING/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884