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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/19/26.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) are:
“Voltage applying unit” in claim 1 interpreted to be a power supply.
“Gas supply source” in claims 1 and 7-8 interpreted to be cylinders for storing gas.
“Gas flow rate adjustment mechanism” in claims 1, 6 and 8 interpreted to be a valve.
“Current measuring unit” in claims 1-2 interpreted to be a Faraday cup.
“Control unit” in claims 6-8 interpreted to be a CPU.
“Heating unit” in claim 7 interpreted to be the “heat transfer unit 416” which is a metal wire.
Because 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 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 1-8 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. The claim recites an apparatus and a method of its use in the same claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). MPEP 2173.05(p) (II); and See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Specifically, the claim recites the step of “sharpen[ing] the emitter tip by performing...” This limitation is a step because it recites an action to be performed, rather than a particular structure or a function associated with a structure. This limitation makes the claim indefinite because the step claim language makes it unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates the system that allows for the step, or whether infringement occurs when the step actually occurs.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinichi Matsubara (US 20180308658 A1), hereinafter referred to as Matsubara.
Regarding claim 1, Matsubara teaches an ion beam device that observes or processes a sample by irradiating the sample with an ion beam (The ion beam apparatus according to the present invention can switch between the operation mode of observing the sample and the operation mode of processing the sample (para. [0014])), the ion beam device comprising: an emitter tip (emitter tip 11) having a needle-shaped tip end (the emitter electrode 11 has a needle-like point (para. [0050]));
an extraction electrode (extraction electrode 13) facing the emitter tip and having an opening at a position away from the emitter tip (Fig. 6 as annotated below);
PNG
media_image1.png
424
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a gas supply source (a gas supplier 35) configured to supply a helium gas to a vicinity of the emitter tip (a gas cylinder 357 for storing gases other than hydrogen gas (para. [0054])) (])) (other gases (for example, heavier gases, such as helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, nitrogen, and oxygen, than hydrogen) (para. [0061]));
a voltage applying unit configured to apply a voltage to between the emitter tip and the extraction electrode to cause the emitter tip to radiate the ion beam (The high voltage power supply 111 applies a voltage between the emitter electrode 11 and the extraction electrode 13 to form an electric field for positively ionizing gas in the vicinity of the point of the emitter electrode 11 (para. [0050]));
a current measuring unit configured to measure a current amount of the ion beam (The Faraday cup 79 can be connected to an ammeter 790 for measuring the current amount of the ion beam 15 (para. [0093]));
and a gas flow rate adjusting mechanism configured to adjust a flow rate of a gas supplied from the gas supply source (a flow rate adjustor 354),
wherein the current measuring unit measures at least one of a current amount of a helium ion beam ((The Faraday cup 79 can be connected to an ammeter 790 for measuring the current amount of the ion beam 15 (para. [0093]))), a time increase rate of the current amount of the helium ion beam, and a fluctuation range of the current amount of the helium ion beam
Matsubura discloses “An ion beam apparatus according to the present invention switches between an operation mode of irradiating with an ion beam most including H.sub.3.sup.+ ions and an operation mode of irradiating with an ion beam most including ions heavier than the H.sub.3.sup.+ (para. [0013]))” where heavier ions include “helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, nitrogen, and oxygen.” Mastsubura also discloses a Faraday cup for measuring the current of the ion beam. Therefore, Mastubura discloses wherein the current measuring unit measures at least one of a current amount of a helium ion beam.
and the ion beam device sharpens the emitter tip by performing, according to a measurement result of the helium ion beam performed by the current measuring unit, at least one of a first operation of adjusting a flow rate of the nitrogen gas or the oxygen gas supplied by the gas flow rate adjusting mechanism and a second operation of adjusting the voltage applied by the voltage applying unit (Similarly, to sharpen the point of the emitter tip 11, a method of introducing gases such as O.sub.2 and N.sub.2 into the vacuum chamber 17 while applying a high voltage between the emitter tip 11 and the extraction electrode 13 may be used as well (para. [0130])).
Note, there is no control device claimed for adjusting a flow rate according to a measurement result of a helium ion beam.
Matsubra does not explicitly teach a gas supply source configured to supply at least one of a nitrogen gas and an oxygen gas.
However, Matsubura discusses “simultaneously introducing hydrogen gas and gases (for example, gases such as helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, nitrogen, and oxygen) other than hydrogen gas into the GFIS (para. [0047]).” Because Matsubura teaches introducing multiple of the gases included in the list “helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, nitrogen, and oxygen”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Matsubura to include another gas cylinder 357. Doing so allows for the introduction of multiple heavier gasses for operating the apparatus in the operation mode as described by Matsubura.
Regarding claim 2, Matsubura teaches the ion beam device according to claim 1, further comprising: a focusing lens (focusing lens 71) configured to focus the ion beam (The focusing lens 71 focuses the ion beam 15 (para. [0092]));
and an aperture configured to narrow a diameter of the ion beam (The aperture 72 limits the ion beam 15 (para. [0092])), wherein when the current measuring unit measures the helium ion beam (The Faraday cup 79 can be connected to an ammeter 790 for measuring the current amount of the ion beam 15 (para. [0093])), an introduction angle of the helium ion beam is limited by at least one of introduction angle conditions including an opening diameter of the extraction electrode (extraction electrode hole 131), a position of the focusing lens (focusing lens 71), a position of the aperture (aperture 72), or an opening diameter of the aperture (aperture 72).
Regarding claim 3, Matsubura teaches the ion beam device according to claim 2, wherein the introduction angle is adjustable by changing strength of a focusing action of the focusing lens (Therefore, the optimum focusing conditions corresponding to each ion beam type are stored in the storage medium, and when the ion beam types are switched, the control device 791 may automatically set the focusing conditions corresponding to the switched ion beam types. For example, the control device 791 can change the focusing conditions by changing a voltage or a current which is output from a power supply 710 for the focusing lens (para. [0094])).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuburu, in view of Aramaki Fumio (US 20150053866 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fumio, and in further view of Rahman, Faridur, et al. "Field-assisted oxygen etching for sharp field-emission tip." Surface Science 602.12 (2008): 2128-2134, hereinafter referred to as Rahman.
Regarding claim 4, Matsubura teaches the ion beam device according to claim 1, further comprising: a partition wall surrounding the emitter tip (inner wall 18), a part of the partition wall being configured with the extraction electrode (Fig. 2 as annotated below);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Fig. 6 of Matsubura to include the partition wall of Fig. 2 in Matsubura in Fig. 6 of Matsubura in order to maintain “the air tightness of portions other than a hole through which the ion beam 15 of the extraction electrode 13 passes (Matsubura; para. [0087]).”
PNG
media_image2.png
504
788
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a helium gas flow path protruding into a space surrounded by the partition wall to directly supply a helium gas into the space (gas nozzle 351) (a gas cylinder 357 for storing gases other than hydrogen gas, a hydrogen gas filter 3561 (para. [0054])) (other gases (for example, heavier gases, such as helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, nitrogen, and oxygen, than hydrogen) in an ion source interior 132 (para. [0061]));
Matsubura fails to teach and a nitrogen gas flow path configured to supply a nitrogen gas to outside of the space surrounded by the partition wall, wherein the nitrogen gas flow path indirectly supplies the nitrogen gas into the space through an opening of the extraction electrode.
However, Fumio teaches and a nitrogen gas flow path configured to supply a nitrogen gas to outside of the space surrounded by the partition wall, wherein the nitrogen gas flow path indirectly supplies the nitrogen gas into the space through an opening of the extraction electrode (in the ion source gas supply section 33, nitrogen gas is used as the ion source gas to be supplied (para. [0102])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Matsubura, to include the teachings of Fumio by including the nitrogen flow path. Nitrogen is known in the art to be useful gas in field-induced gas etching.
Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Matsubura to include the teachings of Rahman by including the nitrogen flow path such that it is outside the space surrounded by the partition wall, wherein the nitrogen gas flow path indirectly supplies the nitrogen gas into the space through an opening of the extraction electrode. This is crucial in accounting for the lower ionization strength of Nitrogen (See Rahman Introduction).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara, in view of Fumio, and Rahman, and in further view Juergen Frosien (JP 2010114082 A), hereinafter referred to as Frosien.
Regarding claim 5, Matsubura teaches a vacuum evacuation pump configured to evacuate a periphery of the emitter tip (an evacuation device 16).
Matsubura fails to teach the ion beam device according to claim 4, further comprising: wherein a front end of the nitrogen gas flow path is disposed closer to an intake port of the vacuum evacuation pump than to the opening of the extraction electrode.
However, Frosien teaches the ion beam device according to claim 4, further comprising: a vacuum evacuation pump (a gas outlet 120 is provided. The gas outlet 120 can be connected to a vacuum pump (para. [0025])) configured to evacuate a periphery of the emitter tip, wherein a front end of the nitrogen gas flow path (It is possible to supply gas to the mouth 310 (para. [0042])) is disposed closer to an intake port of the vacuum evacuation pump than to the opening of the extraction electrode (Fig. 3B as annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
448
536
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Matsubura to include the teachings of Frosien by making the nitrogen gas flow path closer to the intake portion of the vacuum evacuation pump than to the opening of the extraction electrode. By configuring the nitrogen gas flow path and the vacuum in this way “the switching behavior between the first operation mode and the further operation mode can be improved (Frosien; para. [0083])” because the two different gasses used in the first operational mode and the second operational mode, respectively, are less likely to contaminate each other.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubura in view of Fumio.
Regarding claim 6, Matsubura teaches the ion beam device according to claim 1, further comprising: a control unit configured to detect the current amount of the helium ion beam (the Faraday cup 79 can be connected to an ammeter 790 for measuring the current amount of the ion beam 15. The control device 791 controls a high voltage power supply 111 using the measurement results by the ammeter 790 (para. [0093])) (The control device 791 can be configured using, for example, a computer, a microcomputer, an electronic circuit, or the like (para. [0093])) and control an operation of processing the emitter tip (When the user performs only the sample processing, the user instructs the mixing ratio controller 358 via the user interface to introduce the hydrogen gas. When receiving the instruction, the mixing ratio controller 358 introduces only heavy gases such as neon and argon into the gas mixer 352 at a ratio of approximately 100% (para. [00600])), wherein the control unit controls the gas flow rate adjusting mechanism (By the above process, it is possible to generate gas with a desired mixing ratio inside the gas mixer 352. The above process may be performed by allowing the mixing ratio controller 358 to automatically control each flow rate adjustor (para. [0057]))
Matsubura fails to teach wherein the control unit controls the gas flow rate adjusting mechanism to supply a helium gas to the vicinity of the emitter tip and supplies a nitrogen gas or an oxygen gas at the same time, thereby sharpening the emitter tip using the nitrogen gas or the oxygen gas and at the same time, monitoring sharpness of the emitter tip using the helium gas.
However, Fumio teaches wherein the control unit controls the gas flow rate adjusting mechanism to supply a helium gas to the vicinity of the emitter tip and supplies a nitrogen gas or an oxygen gas at the same time, thereby sharpening the emitter tip using the nitrogen gas or the oxygen gas and at the same time, monitoring sharpness of the emitter tip using the helium gas (The field-induced gas etching is a method for etching a tungsten tip by introducing nitrogen gas while observing a Field Ion Microscope (FIM) image using helium or the like as an imaging gas by an FIM (para. [0020])).
To be clear, Matsubura teaches a device and method processing a tip and sample observation. When only sample processing is performed, only hydrogen is introduced. When only sample observation is performed, only heavier gasses such as argon, helium or nitrogen are introduced. For both processing and observing, hydrogen and other gases such as helium and nitrogen are supplied to the ion source interior simultaneously. A control unit controls the flow rate of these gases. However, Mastubura does not teach sharpening with nitrogen or oxygen while monitoring the tip with helium. Fumio teaches etching (tip sharpening) using nitrogen while monitoring the tip using helium. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Matsubura to supply nitrogen and helium at the same time for observation and processing. As taught by Fumio nitrogen is known in the art to be effective at etching and helium is known in the art for effective imaging.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juergen Frosien (US 20100108902 A1), hereinafter referred to as Frosien02.
Regarding claim 7, Matsubura teaches the ion beam device according to claim 1, further comprising: a control unit configured to control an operation of processing the emitter tip using information of the ion beam (The Faraday cup 79 can be connected to an ammeter 790 for measuring the current amount of the ion beam 15. The control device 791 controls a high voltage power supply 111 using the measurement results by the ammeter 790 (para. [0093]));
and a heating unit configured to heat the emitter tip (the heat transfer mechanism 416 may be configured to circulate gas or liquid cooled by the refrigerator 4 to transfer heat to the emitter electrode 11 (para. [0083])),
wherein the control unit is switchable between a first processing mode for sharpening the emitter tip by supplying a nitrogen gas or an oxygen gas from the gas supply source (When the user performs only the sample processing, the user instructs the mixing ratio controller 358 via the user interface to introduce the hydrogen gas. When receiving the instruction, the mixing ratio controller 358 introduces only heavy gases such as neon and argon into the gas mixer 352 at a ratio of approximately 100% (para. [0060])) ((for example, gases capable of generating ions heavier than H.sub.3.sup.+ such as helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, nitrogen, and oxygen) (para. [0041])),
Matsubura teaches a processing mode for sharpening the emitter tip by supplying gasses heavier than H.sub.3.sup. such as nitrogen and oxygen.
and the control unit executes the first processing mode at least once before executing the second processing mode (When the user performs only the sample observation, the user instructs the mixing ratio controller 358 via a user interface (para. [0059])) When the user performs only the sample processing, the user instructs the mixing ratio controller 358 via the user interface to introduce the hydrogen gas (para. [0060]) (When the user alternately uses the observation and the processing, the user instructs the mixing ratio controller 358 via the user interface to introduce the heavy gases (para. [0061])).
Matsubura teaches a control unit capable of switching between two operational modes. The control unit is therefore configured to execute the first processing mode at least once before executing the second processing mode.
Matsubura does not teach and a second processing mode for sharpening the emitter tip by supplying a hydrogen gas from the gas supply source and heating the emitter tip.
However, Frosien02 teaches a second processing mode for sharpening the emitter tip by supplying a hydrogen gas from the gas supply source and heating the emitter tip (and introducing hydrogen into the emitter area for an etching operation mode and optionally heating to a further tip temperature (para. [0123])) ( The heater 15 connected to the emitter tip 212 is controlled by controller 172 (para. [0070])) (The controller 130 controls the supply of light gas into the enclosure 14 and the supply of heavy gas in the enclosure 14 (para. [0039])) (According to some embodiments, the controller 172 can be in communication with controller 130 (para. [0070])).
Frosien teaches an operational mode in which hydrogen gas is introduced for etching and the emitter tip is heated as well as a control for changing the temperature of the emitter tip and changing the gas supplied. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Matsabura to include the teachings of Frosien02 by including a second processing mode on the control unit for sharpening the emitter tip by supplying a hydrogen gas from the gas supply source and heating the emitter tip. Using a hydrogen gas and a heated emitter tip is a known method in the art for processing an emitter tip.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubura.
Regarding claim 8, Mastabura teaches the ion beam device according to claim 1, further comprising: a control unit configured to control an operation of processing the emitter tip using information of the ion beam (The Faraday cup 79 can be connected to an ammeter 790 for measuring the current amount of the ion beam 15. The control device 791 controls a high voltage power supply 111 using the measurement results by the ammeter 790 (para. [0093])), wherein the control unit controls the gas supply source (the user instructs the mixing ratio controller 358 via the user interface to introduce the heavy gases. When receiving the instruction, the mixing ratio controller 358 controls the mixing ratio in the gas mixer 352 so that the gas mixing ratio of the hydrogen gas and other gases (for example, heavier gases, such as helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, nitrogen, and oxygen, than hydrogen) in an ion source interior 132 (para. [0061])), the voltage applying unit (the control device 791 controls a high voltage power supply 111 (para. [0093])), and the gas flow rate adjusting mechanism to switch between the first operation and the second operation (The above process may be performed by allowing the mixing ratio controller 358 to automatically control each flow rate adjustor. In addition, the mixing ratio controller 358 may automatically read an indication value of the pressure gauge 353 (para. [0057])).
Matsubura teaches a control device 791 for controlling the voltage applying unit. Mastabura also teaches a control device 358 for controlling the gas flow rate and gas supply source to switch between the first and second mode of operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Fig. 6 of Mastubura to modify Mastubra such that the capabilities of controller 358 and 791 are consolidated into one control device. Doing so allows a user to access all control information from on CPU and simplifies processes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights