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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 February 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Getty et al. (“Performance of a Carbon Nanotube Field Emission Electron Gun”, 2007), hereinafter Getty.
Regarding claim 1, Getty discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a charged particle source (FIG. 2, filament); and
a charged particle pointer to collimate and urge charged particles emitted by the charged particle source toward a predetermined direction (FIG. 9, the predetermined direction being away from the repeller), the charged particle pointer comprising:
a repeller, wherein the repeller comprises a concavely profiled, conductive structure having two terminal ends (FIG. 2, terminal ends at the top of the concavely profiled repeller), a concave surface facing the predetermined direction (FIGs. 2, 9), the conductive structure of the repeller being positioned rearward of the charged particle source and opposite the predetermined direction (FIG. 2), at least a portion of the charged particle source located between the two terminal ends (FIG. 2); and
an isolator (page 655618-3, section 2.2, paragraph 1 and FIG. 2; the isolator is formed by the Macor insulator and the two metal apertures) positioned along a path extending from the repeller in the predetermined direction (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Getty as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
In addition, Getty discloses that the isolator is configured to electrically isolate a first region from a second region, the first region adjacent an outer surface of the isolator, and the second region adjacent an inner surface of the isolator (FIG. 2; the first region is the region external to the Macor insulator and associated apertures, and the second region is the region internal to the Macor insulator and associated apertures).
Regarding claim 3, Getty as applied to claim 2 discloses the apparatus of claim 2.
In addition, Getty discloses that the isolator comprises a material that is conductive (page 655618-3, section 2.2, paragraph 1 and FIG. 2; metal apertures) and is transparent to a charged particle beam (page 655618-3, section 2.2, paragraph 1 and FIG. 2; the charged particle beam passes through the apertures).
Regarding claim 5, Getty as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
In addition, Getty discloses that the charged particle source is located between the repeller and the isolator (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Getty as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
In addition, Getty discloses that a cross-section of the repeller exhibits a parabolic shape (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Getty as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
In addition, Getty discloses that the repeller is configured to energize (page 655618-7, paragraph beginning “We observe…”) and collimate charged particles into a beam (FIG. 9(b)).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Getty as applied to claim 3 above, in view of Avnery (U.S. Patent No. 6,545,398 B1), hereinafter Avnery (2003).
Regarding claim 4, Getty as applied to claim 3 discloses the apparatus of claim 3.
Getty fails to disclose that the material is a mesh structure positioned in, on or under a window frame.
However, Avnery (2003) discloses that the material is a mesh structure (column 4, lines 45-50: element 20a is a mesh with holes 26, 28) positioned in, on or under (column 4, lines 50-57) a window frame (FIG. 5, element 22).
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 Getty to include that the material is a mesh structure positioned in, on or under a window frame, based on the teachings of Avnery (2003) that this produces a beam with relatively uniform intensity across its central region (Avnery (2003), column 6, lines 21-40).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Getty as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Anderl et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,631,471 A), hereinafter Anderl, and Avnery et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,254,911 A), hereinafter Avnery (1993).
Regarding claim 7, Getty as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Getty fails to disclose that a curved surface of the repeller generally points component electrical fields at a periphery of the repeller inward in a gradually decreasing angle from respective terminal ends of the repeller to an apex of the repeller where component electrical fields point generally straight toward the isolator.
However, Anderl discloses that a curved surface (FIG. 2, element 20) of the repeller (column 3, lines 19-21) generally points component electrical fields (FIG. 2, element 30) at a periphery of the repeller inward in a gradually decreasing angle from respective terminal ends of the repeller (FIG. 2: beginning from the terminal end of the repeller located at approximately (105, 45) and moving to the left along the x axis, the field lines 30 are directed away from repeller 20, i.e., inward, at gradually decreasing angles).
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 Getty to include that the repeller generally points component electrical fields at a periphery of the repeller inward in a gradually decreasing angle from respective terminal ends of the repeller, based on the teachings of Anderl that this results in the homogenization of the radiation fields and prevents damage to other components of the system (Anderl, column 4, lines 60-65).
Getty in view of Anderl fails to disclose an apex of the repeller where component electrical fields point generally straight toward the isolator.
However, Avnery (1993) discloses an apex of the repeller (FIG. 8: the lowest point in each curve of the electro-static lenses ESL”) where component electrical fields point generally straight toward the isolator (FIG. 8: the electric field lines from each filament F at the apex points of the lenses ESL” are pointing generally straight towards the extractor grid G, i.e., an isolator).
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 Getty in view of Anderl to include an apex of the repeller where component electrical fields point generally straight toward the isolator, based on the teachings of Avnery (1993). This arrangement advantageously further enhances beam uniformity.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Getty as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Farrell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,863,163 A), hereinafter Farrell.
Regarding claim 9, Getty as applied to claim 1 discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Getty fails to disclose a housing with the charged particle source and charged particle pointer disposed within the housing.
However, Farrell discloses a housing (FIG. 8, element 14’) with the charged particle source (FIG. 8, element 24’) and charged particle pointer disposed within the housing (FIG. 8, repeller 42 and isolator 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 Getty to include a housing with the charged particle source and charged particle pointer disposed within the housing, based on the teachings of Farrell that this housing provides the advantage of flexible electrical connections to the charged particle source and repeller (Farrell, column 5, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, Getty in view of Farrell as applied to claim 9 discloses the apparatus of claim 9.
In addition, Farrell discloses that the housing includes a first pair of terminals (FIG. 10, elements 28a, 28b) arranged on opposite surfaces of the housing (FIG. 10: element 28a is on the left side of assembly 14, and element 28b is on the right side of assembly 14) and a second pair of terminals (FIG. 9: elements 54) arranged on opposite surfaces of the housing (FIG. 9: element 54 in view 9A is shown on the near surface of assembly 14’, and in view 9E is down on the far surface of assembly 14’), and wherein the charged particle source (FIG. 10, element 24) is coupled between the first pair of terminals (column 3, lines 1-2), and wherein the repeller (FIG. 8, element 42) is coupled between the second pair of terminals (column 4, lines 20-21: element 42 is coupled to element 24; column 4, lines 37-38: element 24 is coupled to element 45; column 5, lines 1-2: element 45 is coupled to element 54; therefore, repeller 42 is coupled between the second pair of terminals 54).
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 Getty in view of Farrell to include that the housing includes a first pair of terminals arranged on opposite surfaces of the housing and a second pair of terminals arranged on opposite surfaces of the housing, and wherein the charged particle source is coupled between the first pair of terminals, and wherein the repeller is coupled between the second pair of terminals, based on the additional teachings of Farrell that these terminals provide the advantage of flexible electrical connections to the charged particle source and repeller (Farrell, column 5, lines 1-2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 11 is allowed because the prior art of record fails to teach “the set energy amount corresponds at least to a voltage potential difference between a conductive isolator and a concavely profiled repeller” in combination with the additional limitations of claim 11.
The closest prior art of record, Wakalopulos (U.S. Patent No. 5,612,588 A), hereinafter Wakalopulos, teaches a method, comprising:
setting an energy amount for a charged particle beam, wherein the set energy amount corresponds at least to a voltage potential difference between a concavely profiled repeller and another element (column 4, lines 44-46).
However, Wakalopulos fails to teach an isolator. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach “the set energy amount corresponds at least to a voltage potential difference between a conductive isolator and a concavely profiled repeller” as currently claimed.
Claim 12 is allowed because of its dependence on claim 11.
Claim 13 is allowed because the prior art of record fails to teach “the set energy amount corresponds at least to a voltage potential difference between a conductive isolator and a concavely profiled repeller” in combination with the additional limitations of claim 13.
The closest prior art of record, Wakalopulos, teaches a method, comprising:
setting an energy amount for a charged particle beam, wherein the set energy amount corresponds at least to a voltage potential difference between a concavely profiled repeller and another element (column 4, lines 44-46).
However, Wakalopulos fails to teach an isolator. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach “the set energy amount corresponds at least to a voltage potential difference between a conductive isolator and a concavely profiled repeller” as currently claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Perel et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,251,010 B1), hereinafter Perel, teaches an apparatus, comprising: a charged particle source; and a charged particle pointer to collimate and urge charged particles emitted by the charged particle source toward a predetermined direction, the charged particle pointer comprising: a repeller, wherein the repeller comprises a concavely profiled structure comprising a concave surface facing the predetermined direction.
Swenson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0290298 A1), hereinafter Swenson, teaches an apparatus, comprising: a charged particle source; and a charged particle pointer to collimate and urge charged particles emitted by the charged particle source toward a predetermined direction, the charged particle pointer comprising: a repeller, wherein the repeller comprises a concavely profiled, conductive structure having two terminal ends, a concave surface facing the predetermined direction, the conductive structure of the repeller being positioned rearward of the charged particle source and opposite the predetermined direction, at least a portion of the charged particle source located between the two terminal ends.
Colvin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,440,466 A), hereinafter Colvin, teaches a housing with a charged particle source disposed within the housing, the housing including a first pair of terminals, wherein the charged particle source is coupled between the first pair of terminals.
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