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 Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites “one or more inserts configured to that fill space between the magnets” appears to have typographical error in the underlined portion.
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 1-22 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 12 recite the limitation "a plurality of magnets, each comprising a surface sloped at an angle relative to a plane defined by a line from a center of a field of view on a detector to the center of a field of view on a platform”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 2-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claims 13-22 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 12.
Claims 4 and 15 recite the limitation “the radius of the substantially conical surfaces is relative to the angle” is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the radius being relative to the angle. It is not clear what relationship or comparison is being drawn and therefore the way in which the radius is ‘relative to’ the angle is undefined and consequently, indefinite.
Claims 7 and 18 recite the limitation “the bore comprises a field of view on the platform defined by a diameter of a second aperture on a side of the bore facing the platform” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear how a bore itself can be comprised of (consist of; be made up of) a field of view on the platform.
Claims 7 and 18 recite the limitation “the bore comprises a field of view on the platform defined by a diameter of a second aperture on a side of the bore facing the platform” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear if the ‘a field of view on the platform’ is the same or different to the ‘a field of view on a platform’ of claim 1, upon which claim 7 depends.
Claim 8 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 7.
Claim 19 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 18.
Claims 8 and 19 recite the limitation “wherein: the field of view is about 128mm in diameter” is indefinite because it is not completely clear that ‘the field of view’ refers to the ‘a field of view on the platform, in claim 7, or if the ‘field of view’ of claim 8 may refer to the ‘a field of view on the platform’ of claim 1 or the ‘a field of view on a detector’ of claim 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14-15, 18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bewick (US 20110168887 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bewick teaches a charged particle filter (filter 1, [0030], also Title), comprising: A plurality of magnets (magnetic deflector 2 formed from a number of substantially identical permanent magents, [0030]), each comprising a surface sloped at an angle relative to a plane defined by a line from a center of a field of view on a detector to the center of a field of view on a platform ([0033], Fig. 1 and 2, tapered inner surface 6 is a frustro-conical surface, or outer surface 9 has tapering part, axis 3, detector 30, and specimen 101 as platform in Fig. 1 corresponding to specimen 50 in Fig. 2), wherein the sloped surfaces are positioned to form a bore ([0031]) that comprises a magnetic field gradient that is strongest at a first aperture on a side of the bore proximate to the detector ([0029], [0028], Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Bewick teaches wherein: the sloped surfaces are substantially conical (tapered inner surface 6 is a frustro-conical surface, [0033]).
Regarding claim 4, Bewick teaches wherein: the radius of the substantially conical surfaces is relative to the angle ([0033] teaches the tapered inner surface 6 is a frusto-conical surface of a right-circular cone having an apex at or beyond the location of the specimen. As such, the angle of the conical surface relative to axis 3 will have an inherent geometrical relationship with the radius of the conical surface at any given distance, i.e. using the equation r = h tan(x), with h being the distance from the apex (height) and x being the angle relative to the axis.).
Regarding claim 7, Bewick teaches wherein: the bore (bore 5 with collimator 17 forming outer wall of the bore extending from a location adjacent the specimen end , Fig. 2, [0031], [0037]) comprises a field of view on the platform (specimen 101 as platform in Fig. 1 corresponding to specimen 50 in Fig. 2) defined by a diameter of a second aperture on a side of the bore facing the platform ([0037], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Bewick teaches wherein: the magnetic field gradient comprises a range of about 1000 gauss-5000 gauss ([0050], 0.23 Tesla = 2300 Gauss).
Regarding claim 11, Bewick teaches further comprising: a flux ring comprising a geometry that properly positions the magnets for the slope angle (outer shield 4, [0032], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Bewick teaches an electron-beam additive manufacturing instrument, comprising: an electron beam source configured to produce an electron beam; a platform configured as a support upon which the electron beam additive manufacturing instrument builds a product in response to the electron beam; a detector configured to produce a signal in response to one or more X-ray photons released from the product in response to the electron beam; and a charged particle filter configured to deflect one or more charged particles released from the product in response to the electron beam away from the detector, wherein the charged particle filter comprises a plurality of magnets, each comprising a surface sloped at an angle relative to a plane defined by a line from a center of a field of view on a detector to the center of a field of view on a platform, wherein the sloped surfaces are positioned to form a bore that comprises a magnetic field gradient that is strongest at a first aperture on a side of the bore proximate to the detector.
Regarding claim 14, Bewick teaches wherein: the sloped surfaces are substantially conical (tapered inner surface 6 is a frustro-conical surface, [0033]).
Regarding claim 15, Bewick teaches wherein: the radius of the substantially conical surfaces is relative to the angle ([0033] teaches the tapered inner surface 6 is a frusto-conical surface of a right-circular cone having an apex at or beyond the location of the specimen. As such, the angle of the conical surface relative to axis 3 will have an inherent geometrical relationship with the radius of the conical surface at any given distance, i.e. using the equation r = h tan(x), with h being the distance from the apex (height) and x being the angle relative to the axis.).
Regarding claim 18, Bewick teaches wherein: the bore (bore 5 with collimator 17 forming outer wall of the bore extending from a location adjacent the specimen end , Fig. 2, [0031], [0037]) comprises a field of view on the platform (specimen 101 as platform in Fig. 1 corresponding to specimen 50 in Fig. 2) defined by a diameter of a second aperture on a side of the bore facing the platform ([0037], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Bewick teaches wherein: the magnetic field gradient comprises a range of about 1000 gauss-5000 gauss ([0050], 0.23 Tesla = 2300 Gauss).
Regarding claim 22, Bewick teaches further comprising: a flux ring comprising a geometry that properly positions the magnets for the slope angle (outer shield 4, [0032], Fig. 2).
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 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bewick (US 20110168887 A1) in view of Ronemus (US 20170125201 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Bewick teaches sloped surfaces (tapered inner surface 6, Fig. 2, [0033]).
Bewick does not teach wherein: the sloped surfaces are substantially planar.
Ronemus teaches the sloped surfaces are substantially planar ([0038], Fig. 5 shows magnets 250 and 260 having planar slanted surface 510).
Ronemus modifies Bewick by suggesting that the sloped surfaces are substantially planar.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ronemus because “slanted surface segments… are also suitable” (Ronemus, [0038], Fig. 5). Furthermore, the change from curved (conical) to planar, represents an obvious change in shape, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV. B.).
Regarding claim 13, Bewick teaches sloped surfaces (tapered inner surface 6, Fig. 2, [0033]).
Bewick does not teach wherein: the sloped surfaces are substantially planar.
Ronemus teaches the sloped surfaces are substantially planar ([0038], Fig. 5 shows magnets 250 and 260 having planar slanted surface 510).
Ronemus modifies Bewick by suggesting that the sloped surfaces are substantially planar.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ronemus because “slanted surface segments… are also suitable” (Ronemus, [0038], Fig. 5). Furthermore, the change from curved (conical) to planar, represents an obvious change in shape, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV. B.).
Claims 5-6 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bewick (US 20110168887 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Bewick does not explicitly teach the sloped surfaces comprise an angle in the range of 5-45°.
However, in Fig. 2 of Bewick the sloped surfaces appear to have an angle in the range of 5-45 degrees. Furthermore, paragraph [0016]-[0017] teaches an angle with modulus 2X with respect to a first direction within the plane at each position upon a constant radius defined by an angle X with respect to the first direction, and that the tapering of the inner and outer surfaces allows for the most efficient use of the magnetic field.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a sloped surface with an angle in the range of 5-45° by routine experimentation because, as paragraph [0016]-[0017] teach, it can benefit the system to adjust the angle of the magnets (Bewick). See also, MPEP 2144.05, II. A.
Regarding claim 6, Bewick does not explicitly teach the sloped surfaces comprise an angle 15.4°.
However, in Fig. 2 of Bewick the sloped surfaces appear to have an angle in the range of 5-45°. Furthermore, paragraph [0017] teaches that the tapering of the inner and outer surfaces allows for the most efficient use of the magnetic field, and the solid angle can be increased by reducing a distance to the specimen and adjusting diameters depending on the constraints of the mechanical details of the system.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a sloped surface of 15.4° by routine experimentation because it can benefit the system to adjust area of detection, including by adjusting the solid angle (Bewick, [0017], [0006], [0007]). See also, MPEP 2144.05, II. A.
Regarding claim 16, Bewick does not explicitly teach the sloped surfaces comprise an angle in the range of 5-45°.
However, in Fig. 2 of Bewick the sloped surfaces appear to have an angle in the range of 5-45 degrees. Furthermore, paragraph [0016]-[0017] teaches an angle with modulus 2X with respect to a first direction within the plane at each position upon a constant radius defined by an angle X with respect to the first direction, and that the tapering of the inner and outer surfaces allows for the most efficient use of the magnetic field.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a sloped surface with an angle in the range of 5-45° by routine experimentation because, as paragraph [0016]-[0017] teach, it can benefit the system to adjust the angle of the magnets (Bewick). See also, MPEP 2144.05, II. A.
Regarding claim 17, Bewick does not explicitly teach the sloped surfaces comprise an angle 15.4°.
However, in Fig. 2 of Bewick the sloped surfaces appear to have an angle in the range of 5-45°. Furthermore, paragraph [0017] teaches that the tapering of the inner and outer surfaces allows for the most efficient use of the magnetic field, and the solid angle can be increased by reducing a distance to the specimen and adjusting diameters depending on the constraints of the mechanical details of the system.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a sloped surface of 15.4° by routine experimentation because it can benefit the system to adjust area of detection, including by adjusting the solid angle (Bewick, [0017], [0006], [0007]). See also, MPEP 2144.05, II. A.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bewick (US 20110168887 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Bewick does not explicitly teach the field of view is about 128mm in diameter.
Bewick teaches that the minimum diameter of the bore of the deflector is preferably at least 7 millimeters at the detector end so as to allow a large area detector to be used ([0017]). Further Bewick teaches the deflector has a sufficient internal diameter (preferably at least 10 mm at the dector end) so that a detector with area 80 mm2 can be exposed to the x-rays, ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a field of view diameter of about 128 mm by routine experimentation because, as paragraph [0017] teaches, it is desirable to maximise the efficient use of the bore diameter, and it can benefit the system to adjust the area of detection (Bewick). See also, MPEP 2144.05, II. A.
Regarding claim 19, Bewick does not explicitly teach the field of view is about 128mm in diameter.
Bewick teaches that the minimum diameter of the bore of the deflector is preferably at least 7 millimeters at the detector end so as to allow a large area detector to be used ([0017]). Further Bewick teaches the deflector has a sufficient internal diameter (preferably at least 10 mm at the dector end) so that a detector with area 80 mm2 can be exposed to the x-rays, ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a field of view diameter of about 128 mm by routine experimentation because, as paragraph [0017] teaches, it is desirable to maximise the efficient use of the bore diameter, and it can benefit the system to adjust the area of detection (Bewick). See also, MPEP 2144.05, II. A.
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bewick (US 20110168887 A1) in view of Ochiai, et. al. (US 20020100877 A1), hereinafter Ochiai.
Regarding claim 10, Bewick does not teach further comprising: one or more inserts configured to fill space between the magnets.
Ochiai teaches one or more inserts configured to fill space between the magnets (spacers 14, 15, 32 and 33, [0080], Fig. 4).
Ochiai modifies Bewick by suggesting spacers to fill space between the magnets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ochiai because spacers reduce leakage of the magnetic field and prevent undesired electrons from passing through the boundary zones, (Ochiai, [0081]).
Regarding claim 21, Bewick does not teach further comprising: one or more inserts configured to that fill space between the magnets.
Ochiai teaches one or more inserts configured to fill space between the magnets (spacers 14, 15, 32 and 33, [0080], Fig. 4).
Ochiai modifies Bewick by suggesting spacers to fill space between the magnets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ochiai because spacers reduce leakage of the magnetic field and prevent undesired electrons from passing through the boundary zones, (Ochiai, [0081]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 5712722293. 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.
/LAURA ELOISE TANDY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881