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 February 2026, with respect to the abstract and the claims have been entered. Therefore, the objection to the abstract and the rejections of claims 9-10, 14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. However, the amendment to claim 18 has necessitated a new rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Sinha fails to teach a shunt having a shunt passage for the charged particles to pass across the magnetic shunt, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Hull teaches that passing charged particles through a shunt passage of a magnetic shunt advantageously creates a clean cutoff of the magnetic field while eliminating aberrational effects (Hull, column 7, lines 45-65). Therefore, the disclosure of Hull demonstrates a motivation to modify the teachings of Sinha to include a shunt passage.
In response to applicant's argument that combining the teachings of Sinha and Hull would not result in the apparatus of claim 1, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the shunt being positioned externally to the magnetic assembly) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). First, while the specification discloses that the yoke may be a “magnetic assembly” (page 11, line 30), the claims do not contain any reference to a “magnetic assembly”. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims do recite that the magnetic shunt “form[s] an outlet face of the magnetic sector”, and “the shunt passage extend[s] along the outlet face”; however, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations do not require that the shunt or shunt passage be external to the magnetic sector; rather, these limitations require that the shunt is an integral part of the magnetic sector. Nor do the claims require that the shunt is positioned external to the yoke. In contrast, the claims recite that the yoke comprises the magnetic shunt, i.e., the magnetic shunt is integrally formed as part of the yoke.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the invention as claimed “exhibits a reduced fringe field as compared to known instruments”, features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Sinha in view of Hull teaches the structural limitations of the magnetic sector as claimed (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 below). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met. Furthermore, as discussed supra, the disclosure of Hull demonstrates that the use of a magnetic sector with a magnetic shunt to reduce a fringing field is known in the art (Hull, column 7, lines 45-65).
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.
Claim 18 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “a magnetic material”, and the claim also recites “at least one of iron and other ferromagnetic materials” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
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 1, 3, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha (U.S. Patent No. 6,403,956 B1), hereinafter Sinha, in view of Hull et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,787,790 A), hereinafter Hull.
Regarding claim 1, Sinha discloses a magnetic sector (column 3, lines 44-45), comprising:
magnetic means (FIG. 2, element 100),
a yoke (FIG. 2, element 102) including a first magnetic portion (FIG. 2, U-shaped portion of yoke 102), and a second portion comprising a magnetic shunt (FIG. 2, ‘SHUUT’; column 3, line 50);
a deflection gap in the first magnetic portion (FIG. 2, gap containing element 110); the magnetic sector being configured such that the magnetic means are adapted for generating a magnetic field through the deflection gap in order to deflect charged particles moving in said deflection gap (column 3, lines 46-49), and wherein the magnetic shunt is arranged for directing a magnetic flux leaked from the deflection gap into the first magnetic portion (column 4, lines 15-30: the shunt directs the flux away from the magnetic element, i.e., away from the magnet and pole pieces at the right side of FIG. 2, i.e., towards the vertical part of the first magnetic portion of the yoke at the left side of FIG. 2).
Sinha fails to disclose the magnetic shunt forming an outlet face of the magnetic sector; wherein the magnetic shunt comprises a shunt passage for the charged particles to pass across the magnetic shunt, the shunt passage extending along the outlet face.
However, Hull discloses the magnetic shunt forming an outlet face of the magnetic sector (column 5, lines 43-46, exit shunt assembly 46);
wherein the magnetic shunt comprises a shunt passage for the charged particles to pass across the magnetic shunt (column 5, lines 55-61), the shunt passage extending along the outlet face (FIG. 6: the passage between shunt plates 60 of exit shunt assembly 46, which is also the passage between spacers 66, 68 as seen in FIG. 3, extends along outlet face 70 as seen in FIG. 3).
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 Sinha to include the magnetic shunt forming an outlet face of the magnetic sector; wherein the magnetic shunt comprises a shunt passage for the charged particles to pass across the magnetic shunt, the shunt passage extending along the outlet face, based on the teachings of Hull that passing the charged particles across the magnetic shunt creates a clean cutoff of the magnetic field while eliminating aberrational effects (Hull, column 7, lines 45-65).
Regarding claim 3, Sinha in view of Hull as applied to claim 1 discloses the magnetic sector in accordance with claim 1.
In addition, Sinha discloses that the magnetic shunt is arranged at a distance from and faces the first magnetic portion (FIG. 2: the shunt and the vertical part of the first magnetic portion of the yoke 102 are separated by a gap, with the shunt facing to the left, i.e., towards the vertical part of the first magnetic portion).
Regarding claim 5, Sinha in view of Hull as applied to claim 1 discloses the magnetic sector in accordance with claim 1.
In addition, Sinha discloses that the magnetic sector comprises an inner separation between the first magnetic portion and the magnetic shunt (FIG. 2: the shunt and the vertical part of the first magnetic portion of the yoke 102 are separated by a gap).
In addition, Hull discloses that the inner separation (FIG. 6, separation between first magnetic portion formed by poles 42, 44 and shunt 38) extends between the deflection gap (FIG. 6, gap 78) and the shunt passage (FIG. 6, shunt passage between shunt plates 48).
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 Sinha in view of Hull to include that the inner separation extends between the deflection gap and the shunt passage, based on the additional teachings of Hull that this arrangement eliminates aberrational effects while maintaining a clean magnetic field cutoff (Hull, column 7, lines 45-65).
Regarding claim 13, Sinha in view of Hull as applied to claim 1 discloses the magnetic sector in accordance with claim 1.
In addition, Sinha discloses a magnetic shunt being configured for directing a magnetic flux leaked from the deflection gap in the first magnetic portion (column 4, lines 15-30: the shunt directs the flux away from the magnetic element, i.e., away from the magnet and pole pieces at the right side of FIG. 2, i.e., towards the vertical part of the first magnetic portion of the yoke at the left side of FIG. 2).
In addition, Hull discloses that the magnetic sector defines an inlet face (column 5, lines 40-45, entrance shunt assembly 38) and an outlet face (column 5, lines 43-46, exit shunt assembly 46), and wherein the magnetic sector further comprises a second magnetic shunt at the inlet face (column 5, lines 41-44, entrance shunt assembly 38).
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 Sinha in view of Hull to include that the magnetic sector defines an inlet face and an outlet face, and wherein the magnetic sector further comprises a second magnetic shunt at the inlet face, based on the additional teachings of Hull that this arrangement eliminates aberrational effects while maintaining a clean magnetic field cutoff (Hull, column 7, lines 45-65).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha in view of Hull as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Andrzejewski et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0057853 A1), hereinafter Andrzejewski.
Regarding claim 8, Sinha in view of Hull as applied to claim 1 discloses the magnetic sector in accordance with claim 1.
In addition, Sinha discloses that the magnetic shunt comprises at least one magnetic plate that is perpendicular to the deflection gap (FIG. 2: the shunt extends in a vertical direction, perpendicular to the horizontal extent of the deflection gap containing element 110).
Sinha in view of Hull fails to disclose that said at least one magnetic plate defines the shunt passage.
However, Andrzejewski discloses that said at least one magnetic plate (FIG. 4, element 395) defines the shunt passage (FIG. 4, element 397).
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 Sinha in view of Hull to include that said at least one magnetic plate defines the shunt passage, based on the teachings of Andrzejewski that this allows particles to pass the shunt while maintaining a sharp cutoff of the magnetic field (Andrzejewski, paragraphs 0065-0067).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha in view of Hull and Andrzejewski as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of KR Patent No. 100304020 B1, hereinafter KR 100304020 B1 (English machine translation provided in a prior office action).
Regarding claim 9, Sinha in view of Hull and Andrzejewski as applied to claim 8 discloses the magnetic sector in accordance with claim 8.
Sinha in view of Hull and Andrzejewski fails to disclose that the magnetic shunt comprises a plurality of branches and at least one of the plurality of branches is inclined with respect to the at least one magnetic plate and which extends toward the deflection gap, wherein the at least one magnetic plate includes a first magnetic plate and a second magnetic plate, at least two of said plurality of branches extending from the respective magnetic plates toward the deflection gap.
However, KR 100304020 B1 discloses that the magnetic shunt comprises a plurality of branches (FIG. 5b, elements
32
a
f
'
,
32
b
f
'
) and at least one of the plurality of branches is inclined with respect to the at least one magnetic plate (FIG. 5b, element 30’) and which extends toward the deflection gap (page 1, second paragraph from last to page 2, first paragraph: beams R, G, B are scanned, i.e., deflected, along screen 11 (FIG. 1); therefore, the deflection gap is the large, empty area to the left of element 11 in FIG. 1; FIG. 3 shows shunt 23a, which includes the arms shown in FIGs. 5, extending towards the deflection gap), wherein the at least one magnetic plate includes a first magnetic plate (FIG. 5b, element 30’) and a second magnetic plate (FIG. 5b, element 31c’), at least two of said plurality of branches extending from the respective magnetic plates toward the deflection gap (page 1, second paragraph from last to page 2, first paragraph: beams R, G, B are scanned, i.e., deflected, along screen 11 (FIG. 1); therefore, the deflection gap is the large, empty area to the left of element 11 in FIG. 1; FIG. 3 shows shunt 23a, which includes the arms shown in FIGs. 5, extending towards the deflection gap).
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 Sinha in view of Hull and Andrzejewski to include that the magnetic shunt comprises a plurality of branches and at least one of the plurality of branches is inclined with respect to the at least one magnetic plate and which extends toward the deflection gap, wherein the at least one magnetic plate includes a first magnetic plate and a second magnetic plate, at least two of said plurality of branches extending from the respective magnetic plates toward the deflection gap, based on the teachings of KR 100304020 B1 that this configuration minimizes horizontal trap error effects (KR 100304020 B1, page 4, last paragraph to page 5, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Sinha in view of Hull, Andrzejewski, and KR 100304020 B1 as applied to claim 9 discloses the magnetic sector in accordance with claim 9.
In addition, KR 100304020 B1 discloses that an inclination angle between the at least one branch and the at least one magnetic plate ranges from 45° to 60° (FIGs. 5a, 5b show branch
32
a
f
'
inclined with respect to the horizontal, i.e., X axis of plate 30; FIG. 5d shows that branch
32
a
f
'
spans an angle of 38° to 47°, i.e., spans a total of 9°; therefore, the center of the branch is at 38°+4.5°=42.5° from the Y axis, or 90°-42.5°=47.5° from the X axis of plate 30).
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 Sinha in view of Hull, Andrzejewski, and KR 100304020 B1 to include that an inclination angle between the at least one branch and the at least one magnetic plate ranges from 45° to 60°, based on the additional teachings of KR 100304020 B1 that this configuration minimizes horizontal trap error effects (KR 100304020 B1, page 4, last paragraph to page 5, first paragraph).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha in view of Hull as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vassiliou et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0263714 A1), hereinafter Vassiliou.
Regarding claim 11, Sinha in view of Hull as applied to claim 1 discloses the magnetic sector in accordance with claim 1.
Sinha in view of Hull fails to disclose that the magnetic means comprise at least one of at least one permanent magnet and at least one coil.
However, Vassiliou discloses that the magnetic means comprise at least one of at least one permanent magnet and at least one coil (FIG. 6, element 220g).
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 Sinha in view of Hull to include that the magnetic means comprise at least one of at least one permanent magnet and at least one coil, based on the teachings of Vassiliou that the coil provides the ability to maintain a magnetic flux in a desired range (Vassiliou, paragraph 0077).
Regarding claim 12, Sinha in view of Hull and Vassiliou as applied to claim 11 discloses the magnetic sector in accordance with claim 11.
In addition, Vassiliou discloses that the coil extends on a majority of a space between the first magnetic portion and the magnetic shunt (FIG. 5: coil 120g extends vertically in alignment with the space between first magnetic portion 120b and shunt 120h).
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 Sinha in view of Hull and Vassiliou to include that the coil extends on a majority of a space between the first magnetic portion and the magnetic shunt, based on the additional teachings of Vassiliou that the coil provides the ability to maintain a magnetic flux in a desired range (Vassiliou, paragraph 0071).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha in view of Hull as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Fan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0303168 A1), hereinafter Fan.
Regarding claim 14, Sinha in view of Hull as applied to claim 13 discloses the magnetic sector in accordance with claim 13.
Sinha in view of Hull fails to disclose that the magnetic sector further defines an opposite face at an opposite of the inlet face, wherein the magnetic sector further comprises a third magnetic shunt at the opposite face, the third magnetic shunt being symmetrical to the second magnetic shunt.
However, Fan discloses that the magnetic sector further defines an opposite face (FIG. 6, lowest element 93) at an opposite of the inlet face (FIG. 6, upper, i.e., inlet face at element 79), wherein the magnetic sector further comprises a third magnetic shunt at the opposite face, the third magnetic shunt being symmetrical to the second magnetic shunt (FIG. 8 shows three magnetic shunts 93, the upper, i.e., second or inlet shunt, and lower, i.e., third, shunts 93 being symmetrical about a horizontal axis of symmetry).
Fan is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e., undesirable trajectories of particles in a charged particle beam.
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 Sinha in view of Hull to include that the magnetic sector further defines an opposite face at an opposite of the inlet face, wherein the magnetic sector further comprises a third magnetic shunt at the opposite face, the third magnetic shunt being symmetrical to the second magnetic shunt, based on the teachings of Fan that this arrangement advantageously deflects/separates charged particles for better control of the alignment of the charged particle beam (Fan, paragraph 0037).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha in view of Hull as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0357175 A1), hereinafter Hoang, and Lang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0027775 A1), hereinafter Lang.
Regarding claim 15, Sinha in view of Hull as applied to claim 1 discloses the magnetic sector in accordance with claim 1.
Sinha in view of Hull fails to disclose that the yoke comprises a main magnetic circuit in the first magnetic portion and at a distance from the magnetic shunt, and an auxiliary magnetic loop through the magnetic shunt and the first magnetic portion.
However, Hoang discloses that the yoke comprises a main magnetic circuit in the first magnetic portion (paragraph 0045, lines 1-3) and at a distance from the magnetic shunt (FIG. 3: element 220, which is analogous to element 120 of FIG. 2, is spaced at a distance from magnetic shunt 250).
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 Sinha in view of Hull to include that the yoke comprises a main magnetic circuit in the first magnetic portion and at a distance from the magnetic shunt, based on the teachings of Hoang that this advantageously produces a strong, uniform magnetic field in the deflection gap (Hoang, paragraph 0045).
Sinha in view of Hull and Hoang fails to disclose an auxiliary magnetic loop through the magnetic shunt and the first magnetic portion.
However, Lang discloses an auxiliary magnetic loop (FIG. 1, element MK2) through the magnetic shunt (FIG. 2, elements 24) and the first magnetic portion (paragraph 0032, magnetic portion 11, 12).
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 Sinha in view of Hull and Hoang to include an auxiliary magnetic loop through the magnetic shunt and the first magnetic portion, based on the teachings of Lang that this arrangement reduces power loss in the system (Lang, paragraph 0005).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha in view of Hull as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoang and Andrzejewski.
Regarding claim 18, Sinha in view of Hull as applied to claim 1 discloses the magnetic sector in accordance with claim 1.
Sinha in view of Hull fails to disclose that the yoke, pole-pieces, and the magnetic shunt comprise a magnetic material including at least one of iron and other ferromagnetic materials, and wherein a width of the deflection gap is equal to a width of the shunt passage.
However, Hoang discloses that the yoke, pole-pieces (paragraph 0045, lines 11-13), and the magnetic shunt comprise a magnetic material (paragraph 0028) including at least one of iron and other ferromagnetic materials (paragraph 0045).
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 Sinha in view of Hull to include that the yoke, pole-pieces, and the magnetic shunt comprise a magnetic material including at least one of iron and other ferromagnetic materials, based on the teachings of Hoang that this beneficially minimizes a fringing field region (Hoang, paragraph 0045).
Sinha in view of Hull and Hoang fails to disclose that a width of the deflection gap is equal to a width of the shunt passage.
However, Andrzejewski discloses that a width of the deflection gap (paragraph 0062, 5 mm) is equal to a width of the shunt passage (paragraph 0066, 5 mm).
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 Sinha in view of Hull and Hoang to include that a width of the deflection gap is equal to a width of the shunt passage, based on the teachings of Andrzejewski that this allows particles to pass the shunt while maintaining a sharp cutoff at high magnetic field strengths (Andrzejewski, paragraphs 0062, 0065-0067).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha in view of Hull as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoang.
Regarding claim 19, Sinha in view of Hull as applied to claim 1 discloses the magnetic sector in accordance with claim 1.
In addition, Sinha discloses a magnetic sector (column 3, lines 44-45) mass spectrometer (column 4, lines 24-26), comprising:
an ion source (FIG. 1, element 112);
a magnetic sector mass analyser (FIG. 1, element 114); and
at least one detection system (FIG. 1, element 116).
Sinha in view of Hull fails to disclose an electrostatic sector.
However, Hoang discloses an electrostatic sector (paragraph 0050).
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 Sinha in view of Hull to include an electrostatic sector, based on the teachings of Hoang that the electrostatic sector makes it easier to adjust detectors, and provides the benefit of focusing a beam in both horizontal and vertical directions (Hoang, paragraphs 0049-0050).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha in view of Hull as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aitken (U.S. Patent No. 4,847,504 A), hereinafter Aitken.
Regarding claim 20, Sinha in view of Hull as applied to claim 1 discloses the magnetic sector in accordance with claim 1.
In addition, Sinha discloses a particle deviation process, comprising the steps:
providing a magnetic sector (column 3, lines 44-45);
generating a magnetic field through the deflection gap (column 3, lines 46-49);
moving a charged particle through the deflection gap (column 4, lines 55-65); and
deflecting the charged particle in the deflection gap by means of the magnetic field (column 4, lines 58-59).
Sinha in view of Hull fails to disclose crossing the magnetic shunt with the charged particle outside the first magnetic portion.
However, Aitken discloses crossing the magnetic shunt (FIG. 63, element 560) with the charged particle (column 35, line 5) outside the first magnetic portion (FIG. 62, elements 550, 555).
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 Sinha in view of Hull to include crossing the magnetic shunt with the charged particle outside the first magnetic portion, based on the teachings of Aitken that this arrangement maximizes fringe focusing power (Aitken, column 35, lines 16-28).
Regarding claim 21, Sinha in view of Hull and Aitken as applied to claim 20 discloses the charged particle deviation process in accordance with claim 20.
In addition, Aitken discloses entering the yoke (FIG. 62, area included between elements 550, 555) during which the charged particle crosses the magnetic shunt (FIG. 62, entry shunt 560); and leaving the yoke during which the charged particle crosses the magnetic shunt (FIG. 62, exit shunt 565).
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 Sinha in view of Hull and Aitken to include entering the yoke during which the charged particle crosses the magnetic shunt; and leaving the yoke during which the charged particle crosses the magnetic shunt, based on the additional teachings of Aitken that this arrangement maximizes fringe focusing power (Aitken, column 35, lines 16-28).
Conclusion
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
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881