DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group (i) in the reply filed on 18 November 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The amendment filed 20 May 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 20 May 2025 and 18 November 2025, with respect to the claims and the specification have been entered. Therefore, the rejections of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112 for improper Markush groupings, the objection to the abstract, and the objection to the specification for reference character 420 being used to designate different invention components, have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 20 May 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s).
Applicant's arguments, filed 18 November 2025, with respect to the specification have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms” (emphasis added). The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. While it is recognized that the field of the invention may be complex, Applicant is reminded that the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are as follows (emphasis added):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
In particular, the specification must be written such that a person of ordinary skill in the art is enabled to make and use the invention. Therefore, the complexity of the field of the invention does not preclude the requirement for a specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms”. Regarding applicant’s concerns that the details and examples of the specification as written are necessary to avoid a lack of disclosure, it is suggested that applicant consider rewriting the run-on sentences and layers of parenthetical notes or tangents as separate sentences and/or paragraphs.
A substitute specification is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because the numerous typographical errors, run-on sentences, and multiple layers of parenthetical notes or tangents within single sentences fails to meet the clarity and conciseness requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
Sentences throughout the specification are verbose run-on sentences which contain an excess of examples and parenthetical notes or tangents.
A plurality of typos are present which reduce the clarity of the specification.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 13-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Graupera et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0027607 A1), hereinafter Graupera.
Regarding claim 1, Graupera discloses a particle beam system (FIG. 2A), comprising: a particle guiding tube (FIG. 2A, element 202), one or more transversely movable electrodes (paragraph 0038: electrodes 204 are movable through the use of connectors 206; FIG. 2A shows that connectors 206 move electrodes 204 in the horizontal direction) to provide a transverse electric and/or magnetic field (paragraph 0029 and FIG. 3, electric field 320U, 320L, magnetic field 322U, 322L), wherein a particle flow can be influenced by said one or more transversely movable electrodes (paragraph 0038), said system characterized in that said particle guiding tube forms an array (Dictionary.com defines array as “an arrangement of interrelated objects or items of equipment for accomplishing a particular task” (‘array’ as a noun, definition 7); FIG. 2A: particle guiding tubes 102, 202 form an array).
Regarding claim 2, Graupera as applied to claim 1 discloses the particle beam system according to claim 1.
In addition, Graupera discloses that said one or more transversely movable electrodes have a defined shape (FIG. 2A, electrodes 204).
Regarding claim 3, Graupera as applied to claim 1 discloses the particle beam system according to claim 1.
In addition, Graupera discloses that said transverse electric and/or magnetic field can be characterized as a pulse or linear electric and/or magnetic field (paragraph 0047, linear magnetic field).
Regarding claim 5, Graupera as applied to claim 1 discloses the particle beam system according to claim 1.
In addition, Graupera discloses that said particle guiding tube is insulated with an insulation layer (FIG. 5, element 504), wherein at least one said insulation layer is selected from the group consisting of electrical insulations, optical insulations, thermical insulations, electromagnetical insulations, mechanical insulations, or combinations thereof (paragraph 0050, ceramic, i.e., electrical insulator).
Regarding claim 6, Graupera as applied to claim 1 discloses the particle beam system according to claim 1.
In addition, Graupera discloses forming a mono and/or stereo particle path (FIG. 2A: the dashed vertical line through the center of the apparatus delineates a mono particle path).
Regarding claim 7, Graupera as applied to claim 1 discloses the particle beam system according to claim 1.
In addition, Graupera discloses producing a cross-sectionally shaped beam (paragraph 0030 discloses the beam has having a spot size, i.e., the spot formed by the beam is the beam’s cross-sectional shape).
Regarding claim 8, Graupera as applied to claim 7 discloses the particle beam system according to claim 7.
In addition, Graupera discloses that at least one said cross-sectionally shaped beam is selected from the group consisting of V shaped beams, round shaped beams, square shaped beams, cross-shaped beams, character shaped beams, free shaped beams, geometrically shaped beams, electron beams, ion beams, neutral particle beams, cluster beams, or combinations thereof (paragraph 0030 discloses that the beam is an ion beam).
Regarding claim 9, Graupera as applied to claim 1 discloses the particle beam system according to claim 1.
In addition, Graupera discloses providing an adjustable optical axis (FIG. 3: optical axis 380 is shifted by a distance 326).
Regarding claim 13, Graupera as applied to claim 1 discloses the particle beam system according to claim 1.
In addition, Graupera discloses one or more connections (paragraph 0038, lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 14, Graupera as applied to claim 1 discloses the particle beam system according to claim 1.
In addition, Graupera discloses that at least one said transversely movable electrode is selected from the group consisting of gate electrodes, biasing electrodes, source biasing electrodes, blanking electrodes, beam acceptance apertures, beam defining apertures, plasma electrodes, exit electrodes, beam forming electrodes, extraction electrodes, acceleration electrodes, accelerating columns, deceleration electrodes, decelerating columns, split electrodes, suppressor electrodes, grounded electrodes, shield electrodes, focus shield electrodes, multiaperture electrodes, beam gates, beam defining apertures, column plates, accelerating column plates, scanned beam defining apertures, focusing electrodes, electrical grid electrodes, entrance electrodes, reflecting electrodes, retarding electrodes, lenses, einzel lenses, condenser lenses, objective lenses, electrostatic lenses, magnetic lenses, immersion lenses, deflectors, rotators, extractor electrodes, focusing columns, or combinations thereof (paragraph 0038, lines 17-21; electrodes 204 form a beam acceptance aperture and act as deflectors).
Regarding claim 15, Graupera as applied to claim 1 discloses the particle beam system according to claim 1.
In addition, Graupera discloses that the particle beam system is coupled with an electrocomponent, wherein at least one said electrocomponent is selected from the group consisting of cathodes, photocathodes, anodes, electrodes, gate electrodes, biasing electrodes, source biasing electrodes, blanking electrodes, plasma electrodes, exit electrodes, beam forming electrodes, extraction electrodes, acceleration electrodes, deceleration electrodes, split electrodes, suppressor electrodes, grounded electrodes, shield electrodes, focus shield electrodes, multiaperture electrodes, focusing electrodes, electrical grid electrodes, entrance electrodes, reflecting electrodes, retarding electrodes, extractor electrodes, ionizers, insulators, controls, discharge shields, split Faraday shields, electron beam sources, electron guns, ion beam sources, multicusp ion sources, gas cluster ion beam sources, neutral beam sources, forward-scattered beam sources, plasma beam sources, inductively coupled plasma sources, plasma sources, x-ray sources, clustered charged particle beam sources, multi-beam sources, light sources, power sources, voltage sources, current sources, photo injectors, light injectors, photo emission guns, or combinations thereof (FIG. 2A, voltage source 132).
Regarding claim 16, Graupera as applied to claim 1 discloses the particle beam system according to claim 1.
In addition, Graupera discloses that the particle beam system is coupled with a mechanocomponent, wherein at least one said mechanocomponent is selected from the group consisting of optical systems, vacuum chambers, low pressure chambers, reduced pressure chambers, vacuum pumps, vacuum manifolds, conduits, plasma chambers, sample chambers, process chambers, probe chambers, aperture size controllers, sealing means, lenses, lens systems, fiber optic plates, gas feed systems, gas evacuating systems, permanent magnets, permanent magnet arrays, nozzles, turbines, wheels, propellers, pumps, regulators, injectors, cooling systems, or combinations thereof (FIG. 2A, pump 122).
Regarding claim 17, Graupera as applied to claim 1 discloses the particle beam system according to claim 1.
In addition, Graupera discloses one or more modules (FIG. 2A: module 202; module containing gas storage 130A-D and valves 131A-D).
Regarding claim 19, Graupera discloses a method for providing a particle beam (FIG. 7), the method characterized in that it comprises the steps of:
providing a particle beam system (FIG. 2A) comprising a particle guiding tube (FIG. 2A, element 202) forming an array (Dictionary.com defines array as “an arrangement of interrelated objects or items of equipment for accomplishing a particular task” (‘array’ as a noun, definition 7); FIG. 2A: particle guiding tubes 102, 202 form an array), one or more transversely movably arranged electrodes (paragraph 0038: electrodes 204 are movable through the use of connectors 206; FIG. 2A shows that connectors 206 move electrodes 204 in the horizontal direction) to provide a transverse electric and/or magnetic field (paragraph 0029 and FIG. 3, electric field 320U, 320L, magnetic field 322U, 322L);
transversely relatively moving said one or more electrodes to desired distances and/or shapes (paragraph 0038, lines 15-17);
influencing a particle flow (paragraph 0038).
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 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graupera as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Schumer (U.S. Patent No. 4,763,005 A), hereinafter Schumer.
Regarding claim 4, Graupera as applied to claim 1 discloses the particle beam system according to claim 1.
Graupera fails to disclose that at least one component is provided at least partially with a protective film.
However, Schumer discloses that at least one component (FIG. 1A, elements 28, 30, 32, and 34) is provided at least partially with a protective film (FIG. 1A, element 36).
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 Graupera to include that at least one component is provided at least partially with a protective film, based on the teachings of Schumer that this protective film provides the benefit of shielding stray, low energy elections from escaping the vacuum chamber (Schumer, column 4, lines 55-69).
Regarding claim 10, Graupera as applied to claim 1 discloses the particle beam system according to claim 1.
Graupera fails to disclose producing a rotating electric and/or magnetic field.
However, Schumer discloses producing a rotating electric and/or magnetic field (column 4, lines 34-35).
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 Graupera to include producing a rotating electric and/or magnetic field, based on the teachings of Schumer that the rotating field advantageously shapes the charged particle beam to more uniformly and efficiently irradiate a target (Schumer, column 3, lines 5-9).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graupera as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Harris et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,507,550 A), hereinafter Harris.
Regarding claim 11, Graupera as applied to claim 1 discloses the particle beam system according to claim 1.
Graupera fails to disclose providing a circularly polarized particle beam.
However, Harris discloses providing a circularly polarized particle beam (column 4, line 44).
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 Graupera to include providing a circularly polarized particle beam, based on the teachings of Harris that the use of a circularly polarized particle beam provides the advantageous ability to rotationally displace a beam by a predetermined amount (Harris, column 4, lines 54-62).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graupera as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2,436,676 A), hereinafter Smith.
Regarding claim 18, Graupera as applied to claim 1 discloses the particle beam system according to claim 1.
Graupera fails to disclose forming lenses configured in a separate eye ray configuration.
However, Runge discloses forming lenses (FIG. 1, elements 17 and 20) configured in a separate eye ray configuration (column 2, lines 11-34).
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 Graupera to include forming lenses configured in a separate eye ray configuration, based on the teachings of Runge that this configuration of lenses provides the benefit of examining images produced by multiple beams at one time for comparison or more efficient analysis (Runge, column 2, lines 11-34).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graupera in view of Langeveld et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0325401 A1), hereinafter Langeveld.
Regarding claim 20, Graupera discloses a first portion including a source of charged particles (paragraph 0038, line 3), a particle guiding tube (FIG. 2A, element 202) forming an array (Dictionary.com defines array as “an arrangement of interrelated objects or items of equipment for accomplishing a particular task” (‘array’ as a noun, definition 7); FIG. 2A: particle guiding tubes 102, 202 form an array), and a particle lens system having transversely movable electrodes (paragraph 0038: electrodes 204 are movable through the use of connectors 206; FIG. 2A shows that connectors 206 move electrodes 204 in the horizontal direction).
Graupera fails to disclose a digitizer of photographic or X-ray images, characterized in that it comprises a second portion including a scanning screen coupled with an image processor.
However, Langeveld discloses a digitizer of photographic or X-ray images (paragraph 0253, lines 3-5), characterized in that it comprises a second portion (paragraph 0267, lines 1-2, second level of scanning) including a scanning screen (paragraph 0267, lines 13-20) coupled with an image processor (paragraph 0267, lines 5-9).
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 Graupera to include a digitizer of photographic or X-ray images, characterized in that it comprises a second portion including a scanning screen coupled with an image processor, based on the teachings of Langeveld that this process can be used to investigate the presence of potentially harmful components in the images (Langeveld, paragraph 0267).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hayashi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0243167 A1), hereinafter Hayashi, discloses a particle beam system with a particle guiding tube and one or more movable electrodes
Ken et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0281102 A1), hereinafter Ken, discloses rotating electric and magnetic fields, and a circularly polarized particle beam
Bailey (U.S. Patent No. 2,461,250 A), hereinafter Bailey, discloses an insulated particle beam path and a rotating electrostatic field.
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
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881