DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 limitations are:
Claims 1&20: “a multi-beam generator configured to produce a first field of a plurality of charged first individual particle beams”;
Claims 1&20: ““the first particle optical unit configured to image the produced individual particle beams onto a sample surface in an object plane”;
Claims 1&20: “the second particle optical unit configured to image second individual particle beams”.
The corresponding structure in the disclosure are:
“multi-beam generator”: multi-aperture arrangement 305 comprises a multi-aperture plate 313, which has a plurality of openings or apertures 315;
“first particle optical unit”: The field lens 307 and the objective lens 102 to guide the primary particle beams;
“second particle optical unit”: The objective lens 102 and the projection lens arrangement 205 to guide the secondary particle beams.
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 Objections
Claims 6 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “the vacuum chamber is configured to have a vacuum of 10-7 millbar”, which should be “millibar”;
Claim 20 recites “a second insulation supported by the sample stage lens cable” which should be “a second insulation supported by the sample stage cable.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 20 each recites “a high voltage cable,” “an objective lens cable,” and “a sample stage cable” as separate structural elements. However, the claims do not further define the recited “high voltage cable” or explain its relationship to the separately recited objective lens cable and the sample stage cable. It is therefore unclear whether the “high voltage cable” is intended to be a separate third cable, or whether it is intended to refer to one or both of the objective lens cable and the sample stage cable.
Claim 1 further recites “a shield” but then defines the shied as being configured to reduce electrostatic discharges between the objective lens cable/sample stage cable and the vacuum chamber. Because only one generic “shield” is recited, it is unclear whether, in the embodiment where both the objective lens cable and the sample stage cable are shield, the same shield is required to shield both cables or whether separate shields are required. Thus, the scope of the recited “shield” is unclear.
Claim 17 depends on claim 14, which recites that the shield is disposed on the objective lens cable or the sample stage cable. Claim 17 then further recites that the shield is configured to reduce electrostatic discharge between the objective lens cable and vacuum chamber. Because claim 14 permits the shield to be disposed on the sample stage cable, it is unclear how that same shield would reduce electrostatic discharge between the objective lens and the vacuum chamber.
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 1-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0035773 A1 [hereinafter Zeidler] in view of US 2019/0295802 A1 [hereinafter Shichi], and further in view of Teledyne Reynolds, “High Voltage Wire and Cable Products Technical Manual and Product Brochure,” (2019) [hereinafter Teledyne].
Regarding Claim 1:
Zeidler teaches a multi-beam particle microscope (Fig. 1- multi-beam particle microscope 1), comprising:
a multi-beam generator (Figs.1/4 - multi-aperture arrangement 305) configured to produce a first field (Fig. 1- field 319) of a plurality of charged first individual particle beams (Figs.1/4 - primary particle beams 3) (paras. [0093-0094]: “The primary particle beams 3 are generated in a beam generating apparatus 300 including …a multi-aperture arrangement 305…[which] includes a multi-aperture plate 313, which has a plurality of openings or apertures 315 formed therein Midpoints 317 of the openings 315 are disposed in a field 319”);
a first particle optical unit (Figs.1/4 - field lens 307 + objective lens 102) with a first particle optical beam path (Fig. 1 -particle beam path 13), the first particle optical unit configured to image the produced individual particle beams onto a sample surface in an object plane (Fig. 1-first plane 101) so that the first individual particle beams are incident on the sample surface at incidence locations, which define a second field (Fig. 1- field 103) (para. [0097]: “The field lens 307 and the objective lens 102 provide a first imaging particle-optical unit for imaging the plane 325, in which the beam foci 323 are formed, onto the first plane 101 such that a field 103 of sites of incidence 5 or beam spots arises there”);
a detection system (Figs.1/4 - detector unit 209) comprising a plurality of detection regions (Fig. 1- regions 215) that define a third field (Fig. 1- field 217);
a second particle optical unit (Figs.1/4 - projection lens arrangement 205 + objective lens 102) with a second particle optical beam path (Fig. 1- particle beam path 11), the second particle optical unit configured to image second individual particle beams (Figs.1/4- secondary particle bean 9), which emanate from the incidence locations in the second field, onto the third field of the detection regions of the detection system (paras. [0091, 0098]: “The objective lens 102 and the projection lens arrangement 205 provide a second imaging particle-optical unit for imaging the first plane 101 onto the detection plane 211… The interaction products emanating from the surface of the object 7 are shaped by the objective lens 102 to form secondary particle beams 9. The particle beam system 1 provides a particle beam path 11”);
an objective lens (Figs. 1/4- objective lens 102) configured to have the first and the second individual particle beams pass therethrough;
a beam switch (Figs.1/4 - beam switch 400) in the first particle optical beam path between the multi-beam generator and the objective lens, the beam switch being in the second particle optical beam path between the objective lens and the detection system (para. [0099]: “A beam switch 400 is disposed in the beam path of the first particle-optical unit between the multi-aperture arrangement 305 and the objective lens system 100. The beam switch 400 is also part of the second optical unit in the beam path between the objective lens system 100 and the detector system 200”);
a sample stage configured to hold and/or position a sample during a sample inspection (para. [0030]: “The object plane …with the aid of a stage to position the surface of an object to be examined”);
a controller configured to control the multi-beam particle microscope (para. [0101]: “The multiple particle beam system furthermore has a computer system 10 configured both for controlling the individual particle-optical components of the multiple particle beam system”),
wherein: the objective lens comprises a magnetic objective lens and/or an electrostatic objective lens (para. [0053]: “the particle-optical objective lens is a magnetic lens or an electrostatic lens or a combined magnetic/electrostatic lens”).
However, Zeidler does not specifically note the system further includes a vacuum chamber; a high voltage cable; an objective lens cable guided at least sectionally within the vacuum chamber; a sample stage cable guided at least sectionally within the vacuum chamber; a shield; and the vacuum chamber is grounded; the objective lens and the sample stage are in the vacuum chamber; the objective lens is configured to have a high voltage applied thereto via the objective lens cable; the sample stage is configured to have a high voltage applied thereto via the sample stage cable; and the shield is configured to reduce electrostatic discharges between the objective lens cable and the vacuum chamber, or the shield is configured to reduce electrostatic discharges between the sample stage cable and the vacuum chamber.
Shichi teaches an ion beam apparatus shown in Fig. 1, and Fig. 3 further illustrates the sample chamber of the Fig. 1’s ion beam apparatus. Specifically, Shichi teaches:
a vacuum chamber (Fig. 1 and para. [0029]: “the sample chamber 103 configure a vacuum chamber”);
the vacuum chamber is grounded (Fig.1 shows the chamber 103 mechanically/electrically connected to the base/frame structure without being supplied to any voltage);
the objective lens and the sample stage are in the vacuum chamber (As shown in Fig. 1, both the objective lens 108 and sample stage 110 are within the sample chamber 103);
an objective lens cable guided at least sectionally within the vacuum chamber (Fig. 3 shows a connecting means connecting electrodes 301-304 of objective lens and voltage supply 401-404);
a sample stage cable guided at least sectionally within the vacuum chamber (Fig. 3 shows a connecting means connecting sample stage 110 and voltage supply 405);
a high voltage cable (any one of the above-mentioned connecting means); and
the objective lens is configured to have a high voltage applied thereto via the objective lens cable (Fig. 3 and paras. [0049-0050, 0073-0074]: the objective lens 108 has four electrodes 301-304, “a voltage can be applied to those electrodes from the respective four high-voltage power supplies 401, 402, 403, and 404,” the high voltage can be of 40kV).
the sample stage is configured to have a high voltage applied thereto via the sample stage cable (Fig. 3 and para. [0051]: “The sample stage 110 is also electrically insulated, and a voltage can be applied from a high voltage power supply (sample application power supply) 405”).
Teledyne teaches utilizing high-voltage cable in “semiconductor wafer inspection equipment”, and states one of their deign consideration for the high voltage cable is “gradual degradation of the material by partial discharge” (Page 6). To prevent such problems, they apply shielding materials (Page 8) to their high voltage cables, as shown in Figs. 4-5 on page 16 of their product brochure.
Therefore, the connecting means transmitting high voltages in Shichi can be implemented as the high-voltage cable with shield as taught in Teledyne. In the modified system, the shield reduces electrostatic discharge between the objective lens cable and the vacuum chamber, and between the sample stage cable and the vacuum chamber, as recited in claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify the multi-beam particle microscope of Zeidler with the high-voltage supply arrangement of Shichi and the shielded high-voltage cable of Teledyne, resulting in a multi-beam particle microscope in which high voltage is supplied to objective lens and sample stage via shielded high-voltage cable. Such a combination provides known voltage control of the particle-optical lens electrodes and sample stage for controlling charged-particle beam focusing/landing conditions, while reducing high-voltage discharge problems and improving reliable high-voltage transmission in the charged-particle semiconductor inspection environment.
Regarding Claim 2:
The combined references teach the multi-beam particle microscope of claim 1. the combined references further teach wherein the shield is configured to shield an entire region of the objective lens cable in the vacuum chamber, since the shield is to reduce electrostatic discharges between the objective lens cable and the vacuum chamber, it would be obvious to shield the entire region of the objective lens cable for the section exposed to discharge risk to obtain better shielding result.
Regarding Claim 3:
The combined references teach the multi-beam particle microscope of claim 2. the combined references further teach a second shield which is configured to shield an entire section of the sample stage cable in the vacuum chamber, since the shield is to reduce electrostatic discharges between the sample stage cable and the vacuum chamber, it would be obvious to shield the entire region of the sample stage cable for the section exposed to discharge risk to obtain better shielding result.
Regarding Claim 4:
The combined references teach the multi-beam particle microscope of claim 1. the combined references further teach wherein the shield is configured to shield an entire section of the sample stage cable in the vacuum chamber, since the shield is to reduce electrostatic discharges between the sample stage cable and the vacuum chamber, it would be obvious to shield the entire region of the sample stage cable for the section exposed to discharge risk to obtain better shielding result.
Regarding Claim 5:
The combined references teach the multi-beam particle microscope of claim 1. Teledyne further teaches wherein the shield is at least 20 centimeters long, and/or the shield of the sample stage cable is at least 40 centimeters (page 17: the shielded high-voltage cable can be ordered by “length in feet”, indicating lengths exceeding 20 cm or 40 cm are plainly available).
Regarding Claim 6:
The combined references teach the multi-beam particle microscope of claim 1. Shichi further teaches vacuum chamber is configured to have a vacuum of 10-7 millbar or less, and/or an absolute value of a voltage that is able to be applied or is applied to the objective lens and/or to the sample stage is at least 15 kV (paras. [0073-0074]: the high voltage applied to the electrodes of the objective lens can be “40kV”).
Regarding Claim 7:
The combined references teach the multi-beam particle microscope of claim 1. Teledyne further teaches wherein the objective lens cable and/or the sample stage cable comprises an insulation around a core of the cable, and the shield is disposed outside the insulation (Page 16: Figs. 4 and 5 show an insulation around the center conductor and the shield is disposed outside the insulation).
Regarding Claim 8:
The combined references teach the multi-beam particle microscope of claim 7. Teledyne further teaches wherein the insulation comprises a plastic (Pages 16-17: the insulation materials are plastics/polymers, including FEP, PFA, PE, etc.).
Regarding Claim 9:
The combined references teach the multi-beam particle microscope of claim 1. Teledyne further teaches wherein the insulation comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of polyimides, polyethylenes, polypropylenes, polytetrafluoroethylenes, fluorinated ethylene propylenes, and perfluoroalkoxyalkanes (the insulation materials include fluorinated ethylene propylenes (FEP), polytetrafluoroethylenes (PFA), polyethylenes (PE)).
Regarding Claim 10:
The combined references teach the multi-beam particle microscope of claim 1. Teledyne further teaches wherein the shield is electrically conductive and free of organic material (Page 8: the shield is copper braid, and copper is electrically conductive and free of organic material).
Regarding Claim 11:
The combined references teach the multi-beam particle microscope of claim 1. Teledyne further teaches wherein the shield comprises a braided shield (Page 8: the “CHARACTERISTICS OF SHIELD MATERIALS” table lists the shied method includes copper braid).
Regarding Claim 12:
The combined references teach the multi-beam particle microscope of claim 1. Teledyne further teaches wherein the shield comprises a twisted shield (Page 8: the “CHARACTERISTICS OF SHIELD MATERIALS” table lists the shied method includes spiral copper).
Regarding Claim 14:
The combined references teach the multi-beam particle microscope of claim 1. Teledyne further teaches wherein the shield is disposed on the objective lens cable or the sample stage cable (Page 16: Figs. 4 and 5 show the shield is disposed on/over the cable insulation).
Regarding Claim 15:
The combined references teach the multi-beam particle microscope of claim 14. Teledyne further teaches wherein the shield comprises at least one metal selected from the group consisting of platinum, palladium, copper, titanium, aluminum, gold, silver, chromium, tantalum, tungsten, and molybdenum (the shielding material at least includes copper).
Regarding Claim 17:
The combined references teach the multi-beam particle microscope of claim 14. the combined references further teach wherein the shield is configured to reduce electrostatic discharges between the objective lens cable and the vacuum chamber (implementing the high-voltage cable with shielding material can reduce the electrostatic discharge between the objective lens cable and the vacuum chamber).
Regarding Claim 18:
The combined references teach the multi-beam particle microscope of claim 1. the combined references further teach wherein the shield is configured to reduce electrostatic discharges between the sample stage cable and the vacuum chamber (implementing the high-voltage cable with shielding material can reduce the electrostatic discharge between the sample stage cable and the vacuum chamber).
Regarding Claim 19:
The combined references teach the multi-beam particle microscope of claim 1. the combined references further teach comprising first and second shields, wherein the first shield is configured to reduce electrostatic discharges between the sample stage cable and the vacuum chamber, and the second shield is configured to reduce electrostatic discharges between the objective lens cable and the vacuum chamber (each of the connecting means between the objective lens and vacuum, and between sample stage and the vacuum chamber as in Shichi can be implemented with the high-voltage cable with shielding material from Teledyne, thus reduce the electrostatic discharge in-between).
Regarding Claim 20:
As discussed in claim 1, Zeidler in view of Shichi, further in view of Teledyne teach a multi-beam particle microscope, comprising: a vacuum chamber; a multi-beam generator configured to produce a first field of a plurality of charged first individual particle beams; a first particle optical unit with a first particle optical beam path, the first particle optical unit configured to image the produced individual particle beams onto a sample surface in an object plane so that the first individual particle beams are incident on the sample surface at incidence locations, which define a second field; a detection system comprising a plurality of detection regions that define a third field; a second particle optical unit with a second particle optical beam path, the second particle optical unit configured to image second individual particle beams, which emanate from the incidence locations in the second field, onto the third field of the detection regions of the detection system; an objective lens configured to have the first and the second individual particle beams pass therethrough; a beam switch in the first particle optical beam path between the multi-beam generator and the objective lens, the beam switch being in the second particle optical beam path between the objective lens and the detection system; a sample stage configured to hold and/or position a sample during a sample inspection; a high voltage cable; an objective lens cable guided at least sectionally within the vacuum chamber; a sample stage cable guided at least sectionally within the vacuum chamber; a controller configured to control the multi-beam particle microscope, wherein: the objective lens comprises a magnetic objective lens and/or an electrostatic objective lens; the vacuum chamber is grounded; the objective lens and the sample stage are in the vacuum chamber; the objective lens is configured to have a high voltage applied thereto via the objective lens cable; the sample stage is configured to have a high voltage applied thereto via the sample stage cable.
The combined references further teach a first insulation supported by the objective lens cable; a second insulation supported by the sample stage lens cable; a first shield; a second shield; and the first shield is configured to reduce electrostatic discharges between the objective lens cable and the vacuum chamber; and the second shield is configured to reduce electrostatic discharges between the sample stage cable and the vacuum chamber. In the combined system, the high-voltage cable connecting the objective lens and the high-voltage power supply has an insulation and a shielding material (“first insulation,” “first shield”), while the high-voltage cable connecting the sample stage and the high-voltage power supply similarly has an insulation and a shielding material (“second insulation,” “second shield”). Each shield material disposed on the high-voltage cable can reduce the electrostatic discharges.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeidler in view of Shichi and Teledyne, and further in view of US 2021/0119356 A1 [hereinafter Sun].
Regarding Claim 13:
The combined references teach the multi-beam particle microscope of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specially teach that wherein the shield comprises a foil. Sun teaches wherein the shield comprises a foil (para. [0006]: “a high-voltage cable, comprising a cable core, the cable core being wrapped from interior to exterior sequentially by an inner insulating layer, a shielding layer …the shielding layer within the spacing is wrapped by a copper foil”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to use Sun’s copper-foil shielding arrangement in the shielded high-voltage cable of the modified Zeidler/Shichi/Teledyne system because Sun teaches copper foil as a known conductive shielding structure for a high-voltage cable, and using such a foil would predictably provide electrical continuity for the shield and maintain shielding effectiveness at the cable connection region.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeidler in view of Shichi and Teledyne, and further in view of US 2017/0250008A1 [hereinafter 3M].
Regarding Claim 16:
The combined references teach the multi-beam particle microscope of claim 14. However, the combined references do not specially teach that wherein the shield comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of Si, Si/Ge, GaAs, AlAs, InAs, GaP, InP, InSb, GaSb, GaN, AlN, InN, ZnSe, ZnS, and CdTe. 3M teaches wherein the shield comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of Si, Si/Ge, GaAs, AlAs, InAs, GaP, InP, InSb, GaSb, GaN, AlN, InN, ZnSe, ZnS, and CdTe (paras. [0002, 0004-0007]: teaches using “a dielectric insulating layer to control the electric field around the conductor and for “electrical stress control in cable accessories.” The dielectric layer may include a stress mitigating layer, which “comprises a semiconductor filler material…[which] comprises a material selected from the group consisting of silicon (Si), germanium (Ge), gallium arsenide (GaAs)…indium phosphide (InP), indium arsenide (InAs)…gallium phosphide (GaP)…aluminum arsenide (AlAs)…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to use one of 3M’s known semiconductor materials for the shield of the shielded high-voltage cable in the modified Zeidler/Shichi/Teledyne system because doing so would control the electric field around the high-voltage cable and improve resistance to dielectric breakdown in the high-voltage cable connection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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 on (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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights