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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
P. 2, line 1 recites “…associated (IED) determines…”, which Examiner believes should read ‘…associated ion energy distribution (IED) determines…’;
P. 12, line 11 recites “…an battery power supply…”, which should read ‘…a battery power supply…’;
P. 13, line 28 recites “…relate n apparatus…”, which should read ‘…relate an apparatus…’;
P. 14, lines 1 and 28 recite “…an battery power supply…”, which should read ‘…a battery power supply…’;
P. 20, line 4 recites “sub millimetre”, which should read ‘submillimetre’;
P. 21, line 7 recites “This embodiment is s illustrated in figure 2(d).”, which should read ‘This embodiment is as illustrated in figure 2(d).’;
P. 22, line 20 recites “…hat do not include…”, which should read ‘…that do not include…’;
P. 32, line 22 recites “…much fast than…”, which should read ‘…much faster than…’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 10, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the plasma”, however, no plasma is previously required, and as such the term lacks antecedent basis; Examiner believes the term is nevertheless definite in context, and should merely read ‘plasma’ or ‘plasma therein’, as no particular plasma appears to be referred to in the limitation in which the term occurs;
Claim 8 recites “the floating ground of the apparatus”; While Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context, because an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand such an apparatus as having some form of ground, typically a floating ground, ‘the floating ground’ nevertheless lacks antecedent basis in the claim; For clarity, the limitation should read ‘a floating ground of the apparatus’;
Claim 10 recites “…wherein the resistor determine a discharge time of the voltage.”, which should read ‘“…wherein the resistor determines a discharge time of the voltage.’;
Claim 17 recites “there between”, which should read ‘therebetween’.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the substrate surface”, which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. While a substrate would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan as inherently having a plurality of surfaces, no particular surface has been initialized/indicated in the claim, and as such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘a substrate surface’.
Claim 1 recites “the output voltage of a battery”, which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. While a battery would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan as inherently having several potential output voltages, depending how it is connected in circuit, the battery is not previously recited as including any particular output voltage. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘an output voltage of a battery’.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the voltage applied to the first conductive grid is a descending voltage sweep.” It is unclear how ‘a’ voltage can be a descending voltage sweep, as this would appear to require a plurality of voltages. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as though claim 1 recites ‘…apply a voltage signal to a first conductive grid…’, and the limitation reads ‘wherein the voltage signal applied to the first conductive grid is a descending voltage sweep.’.
Claims 5-6 recite “the output voltage of the battery manager”, which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. While a battery manager would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan as inherently having several potential output voltages, depending how it is connected in circuit, the battery manager is not previously recited as including any particular output voltage. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claims, rendering them indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘an output voltage of the battery manager’.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 1-2, 4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loewenhardt (USPN US 5451784 A), in view of Dorf (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20190350072 A1) and Jensen (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20110174777 A1).
Examiner notes that Loewenhardt and Jensen are Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 12/09/2025 and 03/02/2026, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Loewenhardt teaches an apparatus for obtaining ion energy distribution, IED, measurements in a plasma processing system (Abstract) comprising:
a substrate for placement in the plasma processing system and exposure to the plasma (See Figs. 1-2, 4-8, item 100 or 102; Col. 3, line 30 – Col. 4, line 27), the substrate having an ion energy analyser disposed therein for measuring the ion energy distribution at the substrate surface during plasma processing (See Figs. 1-2, 4-8, items 104; Col. 3, lines 30-45; Col. 6, line 67 – Col. 7, line 37; See also description of figs. 5-8), the ion energy analyser comprising a plurality of conductive grids, and a collection electrode, each conductive grid separated by an insulating layer (See Figs. 1-2, 4-8, and in particular, Fig. 2, items 206, 212, 218, item 200, and items 202, 208, 214; Col. 4, line 28 – Col. 5, line 5);
a high voltage generating circuit within the substrate and configured to take the output voltage (See Fig. 3; Col. 5, lines 36-66); and
Loewenhardt does not explicitly teach a high voltage generating circuit within the substrate and configured to take the output voltage of a battery to power the high voltage generating circuit and apply a voltage to a first conductive grid of the plurality of conductive grids and a resistor in series between the first conductive grid and the high voltage generating circuit.
However, in the field of plasma processing of semiconductors, and in particular in imitation wafer sensors for such applications, one of ordinary skill in the art would likely have an advanced degree (e.g., PhD) in a physical science/engineering, or equivalent experience, and thus, would have a relatively high level of ordinary skill and knowledge.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of power sources for such a high voltage generating circuit and could readily apply such a power source as needed, and in particular, would know that battery power is ubiquitous among harsh environment sensing arrangements, and could readily apply such a power source in reduction to practice, even if not explicitly disclosed by Loewenhardt.
Furthermore, the mere disposal of a resistor between a high voltage circuit and the element being applied a voltage therefrom would be well within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the effects (i.e., potential benefits, detriments) thereof would be understood by such an artisan. In particular, it is common in the art (in various applications) to prevent excess current to an electrode by disposing a resistor between it and its power source, whether for output stability, overheating protection, etc.
Nevertheless, so as not to rely solely on such ordinary knowledge/skill, Dorf teaches a resistor in series between the first conductive grid and the high voltage generating circuit (See Fig. 2, item 216, having a resistor in series between the source and the electrode 204; [0063]).
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 Loewenhardt to explicitly include a resistor in series between the first conductive grid and the high voltage generating circuit, as taught by Dorf.
Doing so represent combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, Loewenhardt and Dorf both disclose such high voltage generating circuits connected to a conductive biasing element receiving a voltage therefrom, and Dorf discloses disposing such a resistor between such a circuit and biasing electrode, and one of ordinary skill in the art could readily adapt such a conventional circuit element according to such an instruction with a reasonable expectation of success, which would allow one to control the current delivered to the electrode.
Furthermore, Jensen discloses a high voltage generating circuit within the substrate and configured to take the output voltage of a battery to power the high voltage generating circuit and apply a voltage to a first conductive grid (See Figs. 2A, 2B, 3, 4B, items 205, 305, 418; [0029]-[0031]; [0042]; [0048]).
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 Loewenhardt to explicitly include a high voltage generating circuit within the substrate and configured to take the output voltage of a battery to power the high voltage generating circuit and apply a voltage to a first conductive grid, as taught by Jensen.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as Jensen teaches a plasma parameter sensor with in-substrate battery power for the electrode of the sensor, and such a structure could be readily adapted by an ordinarily skilled artisan to the system of Loewenhardt with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf and Jensen, teaches the apparatus for obtaining IED measurements of claim 1.
Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf and Jensen, does not explicitly teach further comprising a plurality of resistors, one resistor in series between each of the plurality of conductive grids and the high voltage generating circuit.
However, the combination teaches a resistor between one of such conductive bias elements and the high voltage generating circuit and Loewenhardt teaches plural grids, each having a connection to the high voltage generating circuit (Col. 5, line 12-16, as well as similar description for above cited figures).
In other words, the combination teaches the limitations of the claim except for a duplication of the resistor to be identically disposed between each conductive bias element receiving a voltage from the high voltage source and the high voltage source.
Accordingly, 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 Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf and Jensen, to include further comprising a plurality of resistors, one resistor in series between each of the plurality of conductive grids and the high voltage generating circuit, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Doing so would allow one to achieve the same benefits as discussed in claim 1 for each element receiving a voltage from the circuit, which could equivalently achieve similar benefits.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf and Jensen, teaches the apparatus for obtaining IED measurements of claim 1.
Jensen further teaches further comprising a battery power supply and a battery manager within the substrate (See Figs. 2, 4B, 4C; [0029]; [0040]; Examiner notes that electronics coupled to a battery for controlling the output thereof are disclosed, which is interpreted as reading on the battery manager, as they combine to control the voltage to the circuit provided between the electronics and the electrode receiving the voltage) for supplying and controlling voltage to the high voltage generating circuit (Examiner notes that ‘for supplying and controlling voltage’ is intended use and is not further limiting; The claim pertains to an apparatus, and thus, the capability to supply and control voltage to the circuit is what is required under the BRI, which is disclosed by the above cited portions).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf and Jensen, teaches the apparatus for obtaining IED measurements of claim 1.
Loewenhardt further teaches configured so that the voltage applied to the first conductive grid is continuous (See Col. 5, lines 36-66; Examiner interprets the disclosed ‘ramping’ as being continuous).
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loewenhardt (USPN US 5451784 A), in view of Dorf (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20190350072 A1), Jensen (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20110174777 A1), and Chen (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20120248310 A1).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf and Jensen, teaches the apparatus for obtaining IED measurements of claim 1.
Loewenhardt does not explicitly teach wherein the voltage applied to the first conductive grid is a descending voltage sweep.
However, Loewenhardt teaches an ascending voltage sweep (Col. 5, lines 36-66).
Examiner notes that the claim is directed toward a system, and as such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), this limitation is directed toward the capabilities of the high voltage generating circuit, as no actual voltage is required to be applied in such a system claim, and thus ‘the voltage’ is understood to be that which the high voltage generating circuit is configured to apply (i.e., be capable of applying).
Chen teaches wherein the voltage applied to the first conductive grid is a descending voltage sweep ([0071]-[0073]; Examiner notes that the first and second values are not particularly limited and thus an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the disclosed device of being capable of varying between arbitrary first and second values, i.e., ascending and/or descending).
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 Loewenhardt to explicitly include wherein the voltage applied to the first conductive grid is a descending voltage sweep, as taught by Chen.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as Loewenhardt teaches sweeping such a voltage, Chen teaches sweeping between two arbitrary such voltages, and an ordinarily skilled artisan could adapt such teachings to the system of Loewenhardt with a reasonable expectation of success, as an ordinarily skilled artisan, having the aforementioned relatively high level of ordinary skill, could readily adapt the voltages applied to such a system without inventive activity, in view of the above teachings.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf, Jensen, and Chen, teaches the apparatus for obtaining IED measurements of claim 3.
Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf, Jensen, and Chen further teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to sample ion current while the voltage sweep is descending (Loewenhardt: Abstract; Description of Prior Art; Col. 5, line 36 – Col. 6, line 13; Chen: [0071]-[0073]; Examiner notes that the first and second values are not particularly limited and thus an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the disclosed device of being capable of varying between arbitrary first and second values, i.e., ascending and/or descending).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loewenhardt (USPN US 5451784 A), in view of Dorf (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20190350072 A1), Jensen (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20110174777 A1), Chen (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20120248310 A1), and Suzuki (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20200154552 A1).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf and Jensen, teaches the apparatus for obtaining IED measurements of claim 4.
Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf and Jensen, further teaches wherein the high voltage generating circuit comprises a low voltage to high voltage transformer (Dorf: See Fig. 3, StepUp Transformer; [0028]; [0055]) generating circuit is configured to take the output voltage of the battery manager and supply a (Jensen: See Figs. 2, 4B, 4C; [0029]; [0040]; i.e., HV circuit takes output from battery manager to supply a voltage to an electrode; Loewenhardt: Col. 5, lines 36-66; i.e., voltage circuit supplies ascending sweep to first conductive grid).
Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf and Jensen, does not explicitly teach wherein the high voltage generating circuit comprises a low voltage to high voltage transformer feeding a voltage multiplier and the high voltage generating circuit is configured to take the output voltage of the battery manager and supply a descending voltage sweep to the first conductive grid (Emphases added by Examiner).
However, an ordinarily skilled artisan would be reasonably apprised of typical high voltage generating circuitry and elements including but not limited to generic transformers and/or generic voltage multipliers, and could readily apply such a structure as necessary to achieve the required voltage characteristics for a given application.
Nevertheless, Chen teaches supply a descending voltage sweep to the first conductive grid ([0071]-[0073]; Examiner notes that the first and second values are not particularly limited and thus an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the disclosed device of being capable of varying between arbitrary first and second values, i.e., ascending and/or descending).
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 Loewenhardt to explicitly include supply a descending voltage sweep to the first conductive grid, as taught by Chen.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as Loewenhardt teaches sweeping such a voltage, Chen teaches sweeping between two arbitrary such voltages, and an ordinarily skilled artisan could adapt such teachings to the system of Loewenhardt with a reasonable expectation of success, as an ordinarily skilled artisan, having the aforementioned relatively high level of ordinary skill, could readily adapt the voltages applied to such a system without inventive activity, in view of the above teachings.
Furthermore, Chen teaches the use of appropriate high voltage potentials, which an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand as having the necessary voltage multiplying structures to achieve such voltage, which would naturally be understood as including one or more voltage multiplying elements.
Nevertheless, Suzuki teaches the high voltage generating circuit comprises a low voltage to high voltage transformer feeding a voltage multiplier (See Fig. 3, 82t, 82c; [0029]).
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 Loewenhardt to include the high voltage generating circuit comprises a low voltage to high voltage transformer feeding a voltage multiplier, as taught by Suzuki.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as Suzuki teaches conventional high voltage generating/boosting elements, and an ordinarily skilled artisan could readily adapt such structures to the device of Loewenhardt with a reasonable expectation of succession, which would allow one to achieve proper voltages by use of conventional voltage multiplying elements in their typical fashion.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loewenhardt (USPN US 5451784 A), in view of Dorf (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20190350072 A1), Jensen (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20110174777 A1), Chen (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20120248310 A1), and Li (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20200328671 A1).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf and Jensen, teaches the apparatus for obtaining IED measurements of claim 4.
Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf and Jensen, further teaches wherein the high voltage generating circuit comprises (Dorf: See Fig. 3, StepUp Transformer; [0028]; [0055]; Examiner notes that a transformer is interpreted as reading on a voltage multiplier section) and the high voltage generating circuit is configured to take the output voltage of the battery manager and supply a (Jensen: See Figs. 2, 4B, 4C; [0029]; [0040]; i.e., HV circuit takes output from battery manager to supply a voltage to an electrode; Loewenhardt: Col. 5, lines 36-66; i.e., voltage circuit supplies ascending sweep to first conductive grid).
Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf and Jensen, does not explicitly teach wherein the high voltage generating circuit comprises a DC-DC converter and a boost section followed by a voltage multiplier section and the high voltage generating circuit is configured to take the output voltage of the battery manager and supply a descending voltage sweep to the first conductive grid (Emphases added by Examiner).
However, an ordinarily skilled artisan would be reasonably apprised of typical high voltage generating circuitry and elements including but not limited to generic DC-DC/boost converters and generic voltage multipliers, and could readily apply such a structure as necessary to achieve the required voltage characteristics for a given application.
Nevertheless, Chen teaches supply a descending voltage sweep to the first conductive grid ([0071]-[0073]; Examiner notes that the first and second values are not particularly limited and thus an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the disclosed device of being capable of varying between arbitrary first and second values, i.e., ascending and/or descending).
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 Loewenhardt to explicitly include supply a descending voltage sweep to the first conductive grid, as taught by Chen.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as Loewenhardt teaches sweeping such a voltage, Chen teaches sweeping between two arbitrary such voltages, and an ordinarily skilled artisan could adapt such teachings to the system of Loewenhardt with a reasonable expectation of success, as an ordinarily skilled artisan, having the aforementioned relatively high level of ordinary skill, could readily adapt the voltages applied to such a system without inventive activity, in view of the above teachings.
Furthermore, Chen teaches the use of appropriate high voltage potentials, which an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand as having the necessary voltage multiplying structures to achieve such voltage, which would naturally be understood as including one or more voltage multiplying elements, whether using DC or AC or both.
Nevertheless, Li discloses the use of both a DC-DC converter and a boost circuit coupled to one another to provide an output voltage to a desired condition (See Figs. 1-5, 7, 9-18; Abstract; [0003]-[0008]; See various embodiments in [0009]-[0029]; [0059]-[0064] and further details following).
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 Loewenhardt to include wherein the high voltage generating circuit comprises a DC-DC converter and a boost section followed by a voltage multiplier section (Emphasis added by Examiner), as taught by Li, in order to achieve wherein the high voltage generating circuit comprises a DC-DC converter and a boost section followed by a voltage multiplier section, by the combination.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as Li teaches conventional DC-DC/boosting elements, and an ordinarily skilled artisan could readily adapt such structures to the device of Loewenhardt, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of succession, which would allow one to achieve proper voltages by use of conventional voltage multiplying elements in their typical fashion.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loewenhardt (USPN US 5451784 A), in view of Dorf (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20190350072 A1), Jensen (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20110174777 A1), and Son (KIPO Doc. No. KR 20120124831 A).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf and Jensen, teaches the apparatus for obtaining IED measurements claim 1.
Loewenhardt does not explicitly teach wherein the high voltage generating circuit comprises a high voltage switch for discharging the first conductive grid to the floating ground of the apparatus.
However, an ordinarily skilled artisan would be readily apprised of ground discharge switches and could readily apply such an element to Loewenhardt without inventive activity.
Nevertheless, Son teaches the technique of providing a switch for discharging to ground between a high voltage generating circuit and the element being powered thereby (See Figs. 1-8, items 1232; [0033]-[0039]).
An ordinarily skilled artisan could readily apply such a technique to the device of Loewenhardt, which an ordinarily skilled artisan would readily recognize would allow one to discharge voltage receiving elements to ground to ensure proper voltages are applied thereto.
As such, 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 Loewenhardt to explicitly include wherein the high voltage generating circuit comprises a high voltage switch for discharging the first conductive grid to the floating ground of the apparatus, as taught by the technique of Son, as applied to Loewenhardt’s equivalent structures.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to better ensure proper voltage application as discussed above.
Claims 9-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loewenhardt (USPN US 5451784 A), in view of Dorf (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20190350072 A1), Jensen (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20110174777 A1), Son (KIPO Doc. No. KR 20120124831 A), and Lu (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20120212076 A1)
Regarding claim 9, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf, Jensen, and Son, teaches the apparatus for obtaining IED measurements of claim 8.
Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf, Jensen, and Son does not explicitly teach wherein the voltage generating circuit comprises a resistor in parallel with the high voltage switch.
However, the use of a resistor in parallel to a switch at least to selectively direct (or conversely not direct) a voltage through the resistor to discharge a voltage would be generally known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Nevertheless, Lu teaches wherein the voltage generating circuit comprises a resistor in parallel with the…voltage switch (See Fig. 3, items S1, S2, R1, R2; [0024]; [0033]).
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 Loewenhardt to include wherein the voltage generating circuit comprises a resistor in parallel with the…voltage switch, as taught by Lu, in order to achieve wherein the voltage generating circuit comprises a resistor in parallel with the high voltage switch by the combination.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as such a parallel disposal of a resistor and a switch to selectively control flow of voltage to another element is disclosed by Lu, and would generally be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan, and could be adapted to the modified arrangement of Loewenhardt with a reasonable expectation of success, which would allow one to control the discharge characteristics of the modified arrangement in view of Son, in a way that would be predictable to such an artisan.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf, Jensen, Son, and Lu teaches the apparatus for obtaining IED measurements of claim 9.
Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf, Jensen, Son, and Lu further teaches wherein the resistor determine a discharge time of the voltage (Son: See Figs. 1-8, items 1232; [0033]-[0039]; Lu: See Fig. 3, items S1, S2, R1, R2; [0024]; [0033]; Examiner notes that a resistor in such a disposition would necessarily determine a discharge time of the voltage).
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loewenhardt (USPN US 5451784 A), in view of Dorf (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20190350072 A1), Jensen (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20110174777 A1), and Ito (JPO Doc. No. JP 2005276790 A).
Examiner notes that Ito is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 10/10/2025.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf and Jensen, teaches the apparatus for obtaining IED measurements of claim 1.
Loewenhardt does not explicitly teach wherein at least one insulation layer includes a peripheral portion which is of reduced thickness with respect to the remaining portion of the insulation layer.
Ito teaches wherein at least one insulation layer includes a peripheral portion which is of reduced thickness with respect to the remaining portion of the insulation layer (See Figs. 1, 3, and 4, items 21 having items 21b; [0018]; [0025]).
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 Loewenhardt to include wherein at least one insulation layer includes a peripheral portion which is of reduced thickness with respect to the remaining portion of the insulation layer, as taught by Ito.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as Ito teaches such insulating spacers, which could be reasonably adapted to the system of Loewenhardt by an ordinarily skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success, and would allow one, as taught by Ito, to prevent short circuiting.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf, Jensen, and Ito, teaches the apparatus for obtaining IED measurements of claim 12.
Ito further teaches wherein the peripheral portion protrudes from the remaining portion of the insulation layer (See Figs. 1, 3, and 4, items 21 having items 21b; [0018]; [0025]).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf, Jensen, and Ito, teaches the apparatus for obtaining IED measurements of claim 12.
Ito further teaches wherein recessed portions are provided above and below the peripheral portion (See Figs. 1, 3, and 4, items 21 having items 21b; [0018]; [0025]).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf, Jensen, and Ito, teaches the apparatus for obtaining IED measurements of claim 12.
Ito further teaches wherein the peripheral portion comprises two protruding portions with a recessed portion there between (See Figs. 1, 3, and 4, items 21 having items 21b; [0018]; [0025]).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf, Jensen, and Ito, teaches the apparatus for obtaining IED measurements of claim 13.
Ito further teaches wherein the peripheral portion comprises two protruding portions with a recessed portion there between (See Figs. 1, 3, and 4, items 21 having items 21b; [0018]; [0025]).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Loewenhardt, in view of Dorf, Jensen, and Ito, teaches the apparatus for obtaining IED measurements of claim 14.
Ito further teaches wherein the peripheral portion comprises two protruding portions with a recessed portion there between (See Figs. 1, 3, and 4, items 21 having items 21b; [0018]; [0025]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Torregrosa (US 20140353525 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 H 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights