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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
FIG. 3: reference character 320 is used to label two different areas of system 300
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
FIG. 2A: 222, 230, 240, 242, 244, 270
FIG. 3: 322, 342, 344, 370
FIG. 4: 422, 442
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “the first heat-removal element includes at least one of…” (emphasis added), but only one element follows the “at least one of” phrase.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 5-10 and 18 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.
Claims 5 and 18 recite the limitation "the first cold surface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the first cold surface” to mean “the first cold trap”. Claims 6-10 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 5.
Claims 9 and 18 recite the limitation “the second cold surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the second cold surface” to mean “the second cold trap”. Claim 10 is rejected because of its dependence on claim 9.
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.
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 1, 3-4, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimba et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0121611 A1), hereinafter Kimba, in view of Schultz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0005791 A1), hereinafter Schultz.
Regarding claim 1, Kimba discloses a charged particle microscope system (FIG. 41), comprising:
an electron source (FIG. 41, element 1-9) housing a Wehnelt electrode (FIG. 41, element 31-9) and a cathode (FIG. 41, element 32-9), wherein the electron source includes a volume between the Wehnelt electrode and the cathode (FIG. 41 shows a space between Wehnelt electrode 31-9 and cathode 32-9);
a beam column (FIG. 41, element 43-9) including a plurality of electromagnetic lens elements (FIG. 41, elements 2-9, 40-9, 9-9); and
a vacuum chamber (paragraph 0036) including a sample holder (FIG. 41, element S-9), wherein an electron beam axis is defined from the cathode to the sample holder (FIG. 41, element L).
Kimba fails to disclose that the volume between the Wehnelt electrode and the cathode is a dry environment that is substantially water-free.
However, Schultz discloses a volume surrounding an electron source which is a dry environment that is substantially water-free (paragraph 0076: the vacuum environment is controlled to avoid moisture damage, i.e., controlled to avoid a certain level of moisture).
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 Kimba to include that the volume between the Wehnelt electrode and the cathode is a dry environment that is substantially water-free, based on the teachings of Schultz that this avoids moisture damage to the cathode (Schultz, paragraphs 0005, 0076).
Regarding claim 3, Kimba in view of Schultz as applied to claim 1 discloses the charged particle microscope system of claim 1.
In addition, Kimba discloses that the dry environment is substantially oxygen-free (paragraph 0252).
Regarding claim 4, Kimba in view of Schultz as applied to claim 3 discloses the charged particle microscope system of claim 3.
Kimba in view of Schultz fails to disclose that the dry environment is substantially oxygen-free when the dry environment includes less than 5% oxygen.
However, optimizing the oxygen content of an environment is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Kimba teaches that “it becomes important that the
L
a
B
6
should be isolated from any contact with oxygen or the likes in order not to shorten its life-time” (Kimba, paragraph 0252). As such, Kimba identifies the oxygen content of an environment as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., changing the life-time of an electron source which uses
L
a
B
6
. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the oxygen content of an environment and identifies said oxygen content as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the oxygen content of an environment to meet the claimed oxygen content since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 16, Kimba in view of Schultz as applied to claim 1 discloses the charged particle microscope system of claim 1.
In addition, Kimba discloses a container housing the electron source, beam column, and the vacuum chamber (FIG. 1, container 23-1 housing electron source 11-1, beam column 21-1, and vacuum chamber (paragraph 0154)).
In addition, Schultz discloses that the container includes a dry internal volume (paragraph 0076).
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 Kimba in view of Schultz to include that the container includes a dry internal volume, based on the additional teachings of Schultz that this avoids moisture damage to the cathode (Schultz, paragraphs 0005, 0076).
Regarding claim 17, Kimba discloses a charged particle microscope system (FIG. 41), comprising:
an electron source (FIG. 41, element 1-9) housing a Wehnelt electrode (FIG. 41, element 31-9) and a cathode (FIG. 41, element 32-9);
a beam column (FIG. 41, element 43-9) including a plurality of electromagnetic lens elements (FIG. 41, elements 2-9, 40-9, 9-9); and
a vacuum chamber (paragraph 0036) including a sample holder (FIG. 41, element S-9), wherein an electron beam axis is defined from the cathode to the sample holder (FIG. 41, element L).
Kimba fails to disclose that the Wehnelt electrode and cathode are housed in a dry environment that is substantially water-free.
However, Schultz discloses an electron source housed in a dry environment that is substantially water-free (paragraph 0076: the vacuum environment is controlled to avoid moisture damage, i.e., controlled to avoid a certain level of moisture).
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 Kimba to include an electron source housed in a dry environment that is substantially water-free, based on the teachings of Schultz that this avoids moisture damage to the cathode (Schultz, paragraphs 0005, 0076).
Regarding claim 20, Kimba discloses a charged particle microscope system (FIG. 41), comprising:
an electron source (FIG. 41, element 1-9) housing a Wehnelt electrode (FIG. 41, element 31-9) and a cathode electrode (FIG. 41, element 32-9), wherein the electron source includes a volume between the Wehnelt electrode and the cathode electrode (FIG. 41 shows a space between Wehnelt electrode 31-9 and cathode 32-9);
a beam column (FIG. 41, element 43-9) including a plurality of electromagnetic lens elements (FIG. 41, elements 2-9, 40-9, 9-9); and
a vacuum chamber (paragraph 0036) including a sample holder (FIG. 41, element S-9), wherein an electron beam axis is defined from the cathode electrode to the sample holder (FIG. 41, element L).
Kimba fails to disclose that the volume between the Wehnelt electrode and the cathode electrode is a dry environment that is substantially water-free.
However, Schultz discloses a volume surrounding an electron source which is a dry environment that is substantially water-free (paragraph 0076: the vacuum environment is controlled to avoid moisture damage, i.e., controlled to avoid a certain level of moisture).
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 Kimba to include that the volume between the Wehnelt electrode and the cathode electrode is a dry environment that is substantially water-free, based on the teachings of Schultz that this avoids moisture damage to the cathode (Schultz, paragraphs 0005, 0076).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimba in view of Schultz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tacke et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0073506 A1), hereinafter Tacke.
Regarding claim 2, Kimba in view of Schultz as applied to claim 1 discloses the charged particle microscope system of claim 1.
Kimba in view of Schultz fails to disclose that the dry environment is substantially water-free when the dry environment includes less than 5% humid.
However, Tacke discloses that the dry environment is substantially water-free when the dry environment includes less than 5% humid (paragraph 0165).
Optimizing the humidity content of an environment is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Tacke teaches that “a method for contamination free transfer and handling of a cryo electron microscopy sample [is] characterized by: that all sample handling is performed in an anhydrous environment or in an environment with minimized humidity (less than 1%)” (Tacke, paragraphs 0164-0165). As such, Tacke identifies the humidity content of the environment as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., minimizing contamination. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the humidity content of an environment and identifies said humidity content as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the humidity content of an environment to meet the claimed humidity content since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claims 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimba in view of Schultz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bohnenkamp et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,046,457 A), hereinafter Bohnenkamp.
Regarding claim 5, Kimba in view of Schultz as applied to claim 1 discloses the charged particle microscope system of claim 1.
In addition, an alternative embodiment of Kimba discloses a first cold trap (paragraphs 0050, 0322, divider 26-7),
wherein the first cold trap includes:
a first adsorbent surface defining a first cold region (paragraph 0323) at a first temperature substantially lower than a freezing point of water (paragraph 0322); and
a first heat-removal element coupled to the first cold surface (paragraph 0322, refrigerating machine 30-7).
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 Kimba in view of Schultz to include a first cold trap, wherein the first cold trap includes: a first adsorbent surface defining a first cold region at a first temperature substantially lower than a freezing point of water; and a first heat-removal element coupled to the first cold surface as taught in the alternative embodiment of Kimba, based on the teachings of Kimba that this cold trap prevents contaminants from entering the sample chamber (Kimba, paragraph 0323).
Kimba in view of Schultz fails to disclose that the first cold trap is positioned between the beam column and the Wehnelt electrode. This limitation is understood as the cold trap being positioned between the electromagnetic lens elements (claim 1, “a beam column including a plurality of electromagnetic lens elements”) and the electron source (claim 1, “an electron source housing a Wehnelt electrode and a cathode”).
Bohnenkamp discloses that the first cold trap (FIG. 1, element 21) is positioned between the beam column (FIG. 1, demagnifying lens(es) 18; see column 2, lines 11-20) and the Wehnelt electrode (FIG. 1, electron source 10).
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 Kimba in view of Schultz to include that the first cold trap is positioned between the beam column and the Wehnelt electrode, based on the teachings of Bohnenkamp that the cold trap prevents contamination of downstream components (Bohnenkamp, column 2, lines 39-49).
Regarding claim 7, Kimba in view of Schultz and Bohnenkamp as applied to claim 5 discloses the charged particle microscope system of claim 5.
In addition, Kimba discloses that the first heat-removal element includes at least one of a circulating element in fluid communication with a reservoir housing coolant (paragraph 0324).
Regarding claim 8, Kimba in view of Schultz and Bohnenkamp as applied to claim 7 discloses the charged particle microscope system of claim 7.
In addition, Kimba discloses that the coolant includes at least one of a liquid nitrogen or dry ice in acetone (paragraph 0323).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimba in view of Schultz and Bohnenkamp as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Noji et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0045821 A1), hereinafter Noji.
Regarding claim 6, Kimba in view of Schultz and Bohnenkamp as applied to claim 5 discloses the charged particle microscope system of claim 5.
Kimba in view of Schultz and Bohnenkamp fails to disclose that the first heat-removal element includes a Peltier cooling system.
However, Noji discloses that the first heat-removal element includes a Peltier cooling system (paragraph 0637).
The disclosure of Noji demonstrates that the function of a Peltier element is known in the art of charged particle microscopes. Noji also shows that substituting a Peltier element for a different thermostabilizing feature in a charged particle microscope yields the predictable result of improved thermostabilization. “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). 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 Kimba in view of Schultz and Bohnenkamp to include that the first heat-removal element includes a Peltier cooling system because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimba in view of Schultz and Bohnenkamp as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Branton et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0288182 A1), hereinafter Branton.
Regarding claim 9, Kimba in view of Schultz and Bohnenkamp as applied to claim 5 discloses the charged particle microscope system of claim 5.
In addition, a further alternative embodiment of Kimba discloses a turbopump in fluid communication with the electron source (paragraph 0358, turbo pump 52-8).
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 Kimba in view of Schultz and Bohnenkamp to include a turbopump in fluid communication with the electron source as taught in the alternative embodiment of Kimba, based on the teachings of Kimba that the turbo pump removes undesirable molecules (Kimba, paragraph 0358).
Kimba in view of Schultz and Bohnenkamp fails to disclose a second cold trap positioned between the turbopump and the electron source, wherein the second cold trap includes: a second adsorbent surface defining a second cold region at a second temperature substantially lower than a freezing point of water; and a second heat-removal element coupled to the second cold surface.
However, Branton discloses a second cold trap (FIG. 2, element 24) positioned between the turbopump (FIG. 2, area labeled ‘to pumps’) and the electron source (FIG. 2, element 34),
wherein the second cold trap includes:
a second adsorbent surface defining a second cold region at a second temperature substantially lower than a freezing point of water (paragraph 0053); and
a second heat-removal element coupled to the second cold surface (paragraph 0053, liquid nitrogen cooling).
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 Kimba in view of Schultz and Bohnenkamp to include a second cold trap positioned between the turbopump and the electron source, wherein the second cold trap includes: a second adsorbent surface defining a second cold region at a second temperature substantially lower than a freezing point of water; and a second heat-removal element coupled to the second cold surface, based on the teachings of Branton that this prevents contamination of the sample (Branton, paragraph 0053).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimba in view of Schultz, Bohnenkamp. and Branton as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sadeghi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0319821 A1), hereinafter Sadeghi.
Regarding claim 10, Kimba in view of Schultz, Bohnenkamp, and Branton as applied to claim 9 discloses the charged particle microscope system of claim 9.
Kimba in view of Schultz, Bohnenkamp, and Branton fails to disclose that the second adsorbent surface includes a plurality of channels; and the plurality of channels each define a channel cold region.
However, Sadeghi discloses that the second adsorbent surface (paragraph 0056) includes a plurality of channels (FIG. 2A, elements 122); and
the plurality of channels each define a channel cold region (paragraph 0043).
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 Kimba in view of Schultz, Bohnenkamp, and Branton to include that the second adsorbent surface includes a plurality of channels; and the plurality of channels each define a channel cold region, based on the teachings of Sadeghi that this ensures by-products are removed before the by-products contaminate the sample (Sadeghi, paragraph 0056).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimba in view of Schultz as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Bohnenkamp and Branton.
Regarding claim 18, Kimba in view of Schultz as applied to claim 17 discloses the charged particle microscope system of claim 17.
In addition, Kimba discloses a turbopump in fluid communication with the electron source (paragraph 0358, turbo pump 52-8); and
a first cold trap (paragraphs 0050, 0322, divider 26-7), wherein:
the first cold trap includes:
a first adsorbent surface defining a first cold region (paragraph 0323) at a first temperature substantially lower than a freezing point of water (paragraph 0322); and
a first heat-removal element coupled to the first cold surface (paragraph 0322, refrigerating machine 30-7).
Kimba in view of Schultz fails to disclose that the first cold trap is positioned between the beam column and the Wehnelt electrode; a second cold trap positioned between the turbopump and the electron source, wherein: the second cold trap includes: a second adsorbent surface defining a second cold region at a second temperature substantially lower than a freezing point of water; and a second heat-removal element coupled to the second cold surface.
The limitation “a first cold trap positioned between the beam column and the Wehnelt electrode” is understood as the cold trap being positioned between the electromagnetic lens elements (claim 1, “a beam column including a plurality of electromagnetic lens elements”) and the electron source (claim 1, “an electron source housing a Wehnelt electrode and a cathode”).
Bohnenkamp discloses a first cold trap (FIG. 1, element 21) positioned between the beam column (FIG. 1, demagnifying lens(es) 18; see column 2, lines 11-20) and the Wehnelt electrode (FIG. 1, electron source 10).
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 Kimba in view of Schultz to include a first cold trap positioned between the beam column and the Wehnelt electrode, based on the teachings of Bohnenkamp that the cold trap prevents contamination of downstream components (Bohnenkamp, column 2, lines 39-49).
Kimba in view of Schultz and Bohnenkamp fails to disclose a second cold trap positioned between the turbopump and the electron source, wherein: the second cold trap includes: a second adsorbent surface defining a second cold region at a second temperature substantially lower than a freezing point of water; and a second heat-removal element coupled to the second cold surface.
However, Branton discloses a second cold trap (FIG. 2, element 24) positioned between the turbopump (FIG. 2, area labeled ‘to pumps’) and the electron source (FIG. 2, element 34),
wherein the second cold trap includes:
a second adsorbent surface defining a second cold region at a second temperature substantially lower than a freezing point of water (paragraph 0053); and
a second heat-removal element coupled to the second cold surface (paragraph 0053, liquid nitrogen cooling).
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 Kimba in view of Schultz and Bohnenkamp to include a second cold trap positioned between the turbopump and the electron source, wherein: the second cold trap includes: a second adsorbent surface defining a second cold region at a second temperature substantially lower than a freezing point of water; and a second heat-removal element coupled to the second cold surface, based on the teachings of Branton that this prevents contamination of the sample (Branton, paragraph 0053).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 11 and 19 are allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach “a first turbopump in fluid communication with…the outlet to transport at least a portion of the inert gas into the dry environment” in combination with the additional limitations of claims 11 and 19, respectively.
The closest prior art of record, Kimba, teaches an inert gas reservoir (FIG. 40, element 63-8) housing an inert gas (paragraph 0363) and including an outlet (FIG. 40, element 80-8); and
a first turbopump in fluid communication with the electron source (paragraph 0358, turbo pump 52-8, electron source )5
However, Kimba teaches that the turbopump 52-8 removes (exhausts) gas from electron source 1-8 instead of supplying gas to the dry environment in electron source 1-8. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach “a first turbopump in fluid communication with…the outlet to transport at least a portion of the inert gas into the dry environment” as currently claimed.
Claims 12-15 are allowable over the prior art because of their dependence on claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ooaeh et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,854,490 A), hereinafter Ooaeh, teaches a second turbopump in fluid communication with the vacuum chamber and beam column, wherein: the outlet is positioned between the electron source and the second turbopump.
Knechtli (U.S. Patent No. 2,841,726 A), hereinafter Knechtli, teaches a charged particle system comprising three cold traps and three vacuum pumps.
Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0151572 A1), hereinafter Lin, teaches an inert gas reservoir housing an inert gas and including an outlet in fluid communication with the electron source.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881