Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/996,215

ELECTRON GUN, ELECTRON RAY APPLYING DEVICE, AND ELECTRON BEAM PROJECTING METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 13, 2022
Examiner
KALISZEWSKI, ALINA ROSE
Art Unit
2881
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Photo Electron Soul Inc.
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
38 granted / 47 resolved
+12.9% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
92
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
54.1%
+14.1% vs TC avg
§102
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
§112
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 47 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendments, filed 19 December 2025, with respect to the claims have been entered. Claims 9-11 remain pending in the application. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 9-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0055025 A1), hereinafter Yasuda, in view of Oshima (JP Patent No. 2002313273 A), hereinafter Oshima (English machine translation provided). Regarding claim 9, Yasuda discloses an emission method of an electron beam (paragraph 0015), wherein the electron beam is emitted from an electron gun (paragraph 0015) including a photocathode (FIG. 1, element 104; paragraph 0045, lines 5-7 disclose that light is used to cause the cathode 104 to emit electrons; therefore, cathode 104 is considered to be a photocathode), a light source for irradiating the photocathode with excitation light (paragraph 0045), an anode (FIG. 1, element 107), a heater device for heating the photocathode (FIG. 1, element 103), an output adjustment device that adjusts a heating temperature of the heater device (paragraph 0101), a measuring unit that measures a change in an intensity of an electron beam emitted from the photocathode (paragraph 0101, lines 10-11), a control unit (paragraph 0099, control section) configured to control the output adjustment device in accordance with a measurement result from the measuring unit (paragraph 0101, lines 10-15), such that the heater device heats the photocathode (paragraph 0101, lines 1-2), and a vacuum chamber (paragraph 0091); the emission method comprising: an electron beam emission step of irradiating the photocathode with the excitation light from the light source while heating the photocathode (paragraph 0045) and emitting an electron beam from the photocathode in response to receiving the excitation light (paragraph 0045), wherein the emitted electron beam (FIG. 1, element 108) travels from the photocathode (FIG. 1, element 104) toward the anode (FIG. 1, element 107), both the photocathode and the anode are located in a vacuum environment (paragraph 0060, FIG. 1: photocathode 104 and anode 107 are parts of electron gun 100; paragraph 0091, FIG. 10: electron gun 100 is contained in vacuum chamber 201). Yasuda fails to disclose that the photocathode is a semiconductor photocathode film formed on a first face of a substrate; the change in intensity of the electron beam is due to deterioration of the semiconductor photocathode film; and that the semiconductor photocathode film and/or the substrate is heated to a temperature of 50 °C or higher and 250 °C or less. However, Oshima discloses that the photocathode is a semiconductor photocathode (page 3, paragraph beginning “In the above…”) film (FIG. 3, film 102) formed on a first face of a substrate (FIG. 3, substrate 101); the change in intensity of the electron beam is due to deterioration of the semiconductor photocathode film (page 10, paragraph beginning “FIG. 11A shows an example…”). 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 Yasuda to include that the photocathode is a semiconductor photocathode film formed on a first face of a substrate; the change in intensity of the electron beam is due to deterioration of the semiconductor photocathode film, based on the teachings of Oshima that this enables long-term operation of the device without having affecting the vacuum condition (Oshima, page 9, paragraph beginning “In this case…”). Yasuda in view of Oshima fails to disclose that the semiconductor photocathode film and/or the substrate is heated to a temperature of 50 °C or higher and 250 °C or less. However, optimizing a heating temperature is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Oshima teaches that “the extraction electrode is heated so as to have a temperature of 400 °C to 500 °C to reduce gas emission from the surface” (page 6, second paragraph from last) and “the photocathode can be heated from 400 °C by the heater alone. The surface can be cleaned even by heating to 500 °C” (page 10, paragraph beginning “In the above embodiment…”). As such, Oshima identifies a heating temperature as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., modifying gas emission amounts and cleaning the surface of the photocathode. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting a heating temperature and identifies said temperature as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the heating temperature of the photocathode to meet the claimed temperature range since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda in view of Oshima as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hoeberechts et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,709,185 A), hereinafter Hoeberechts. Regarding claim 10, Yasuda in view of Oshima as applied to claim 9 discloses the emission method according to claim 9. Yasuda in view of Oshima fails to disclose a photocathode temperature adjustment step of adjusting a heating temperature of the semiconductor photocathode film and/or the substrate. However, Hoeberechts discloses a photocathode temperature adjustment step of adjusting a heating temperature of the semiconductor photocathode film and/or the substrate (column 6, lines 44-47). 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 Yasuda in view of Oshima to include a photocathode temperature adjustment step of adjusting a heating temperature of the semiconductor photocathode film and/or the substrate, based on the teachings of Hoeberechts that this step compensates for material evaporation during use (Hoeberechts, column 4, line 63 to column 5, line 8). Regarding claim 11, Yasuda in view of Oshima and Hoeberechts as applied to claim 10 discloses the emission method according to claim 10. In addition, Hoeberechts discloses that the photocathode temperature adjustment step is performed in accordance with a measurement result from the measuring unit (column 6, lines 44-47). 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 Yasuda in view of Oshima and Hoeberechts to include that the photocathode temperature adjustment step is performed in accordance with a measurement result from the measuring unit, based on the additional teachings of Hoeberechts that this step compensates for material evaporation during use (Hoeberechts, column 4, line 63 to column 5, line 8). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Iigami (JP Patent No. H0714502 A), hereinafter Iigami (English machine translation provided), teaches a heater device heating a photocathode to a temperature of 50 °C or higher and 250 °C or less. Zewail et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0131574 A1), hereinafter Zewail, teaches an emission method of an electron beam, wherein the electron beam is emitted from an electron gun having a photocathode, a light source for irradiating the photocathode with excitation light, an anode, a device for adjusting the temperature of the photocathode, and a measuring unit that measures a change in an intensity of a beam. Swanson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0187058 A1), hereinafter Swanson, teaches an emission method of an electron beam, the emission method comprising a measuring step comprising measuring a change in an intensity of an electron beam to due deterioration of the electron beam source. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881 /ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 13, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 13, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 06, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 14, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 22, 2025
Interview Requested
Aug 28, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 28, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 11, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 19, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 08, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597584
CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM APPARATUS AND PROCESSOR SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586768
PULSED VOLTAGE COMPENSATION FOR PLASMA PROCESSING APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586754
PHASE IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS AND PHASE IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580166
TWO STAGE ION CURRENT MEASUREMENT IN A DEVICE FOR ANALYSIS OF PLASMA PROCESSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573579
HYBRID APPARATUS, SYSTEM AND TECHNIQUES FOR MASS ANALYZED ION BEAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+28.1%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 47 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month