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 11 December 2025, with respect to the specification have been entered. Therefore, the objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under Hershcovitch (alone or in view of Doi or Erdman) 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 3 under Doi have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under Erdman have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The disclosure of Erdman does not include a plurality of cooling plates; however, FIGs. 3 and 4 of Erdman would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to depict a unitary cooling plate in accordance with the disclosure of the present application. The unitary cooling plate comprises four ridge sections 76 around a central portion 78 (see FIG. 4 and paragraph 0026) which form a unitary, elongated plate as shown in FIG. 3. The cooling plate comprises an aperture positioned at the center of the cooling plate which extends through a thickness of the cooling plate and forms a channel through the cooling plate (FIG. 3, element 54; see claims 1, 2 of the present application). The cooling plate further comprises a cooling chamber (FIG. 3, elements 70, 72); an impingement channel (FIG. 3, element 66) configured to provide an entrance pathway for cooling fluid to enter the cooling chamber (paragraph 0024); and a return channel (FIG. 3, element 68) configured to provide an exit pathway for heated fluid to exit the cooling chamber (paragraph 0024). Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are based on what the prior art reasonably teaches or suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the unitary cooling plate in the beam accelerator system of Erdman would be reasonable to apply to a plurality of cooling plates in a plasma window in another beam accelerator system.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuboki et al. (“Development of Plasma Window for gas charge stripper at RIKEN RIBF”, 2013), hereinafter Kuboki, in view of Erdman (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0100214 A1), hereinafter Erdman.
Regarding claim 1, Kuboki discloses a beam accelerator system (page 1029, ‘Introduction’ paragraph 1) comprising:
a low-pressure chamber (FIG. 2, element P1);
an anode adjacent and fluidly connected to the low-pressure chamber (FIGs. 2, 4a, anode);
a plasma window adjacent and fluidly connected to the anode (FIGs. 2, 4a, cooling plates 1-4); and
a cathode housing adjacent and fluidly connected to the plasma window (FIG. 4a, cathode housing), wherein
the plasma window comprises a plurality of cooling plates (FIG. 4a, cooling plates 1-5), each cooling plate comprises an aperture that is aligned with an aperture in one or more adjacent cooling plate to form a plasma channel (FIG. 4a, central bore), and
one or more cooling plates of the plurality of cooling plates comprises:
a central wall surrounding the aperture (FIG. 4a, walls of cooling plates 1-5 surrounding the central bore);
one or more impingement channels entering the cooling plate from an outer edge of the cooling plate and extending toward the aperture (FIG. 4b and caption: supply line tubes entering the cooling plates from the outside of the cooling plates toward the central bore); and
one or more return channels entering the cooling plate from the outer edge of the cooling plate and extending toward the aperture (FIG. 4b and caption: return line tubes entering the cooling plates from the outside of the cooling plates toward the central bore), wherein each of the one or more impingement channels are configured to provide an entrance pathway for cooling fluid to enter the cooling chamber and each of the one or more return channels are configured to provide an exit pathway for heated fluid to exit the cooling chamber (FIG. 4b caption).
Kuboki fails to disclose an ion accelerator that generates an ion beam; and that the cooling chamber surrounds the central wall.
However, Erdman discloses an ion accelerator that generates an ion beam (paragraph 0014, lines 1-2); and
a cooling chamber (FIG. 3, elements 70, 72) surrounding the central wall (FIG. 3, element 52).
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 Kuboki to include an ion accelerator that generates an ion beam; and that the cooling chamber surrounds the central wall, based on the teachings of Erdman that this arrangement facilitates rapid temperature changes with high efficiency (Erdman, paragraphs 0004-0005).
Regarding claim 2, Kuboki in view of Erdman as applied to claim 1 discloses the beam accelerator system of claim 1.
In addition, Kuboki discloses that the aperture is positioned at the center of each of the plurality of cooling plates and extends through a thickness of each of the plurality of cooling plates (FIG. 4a: the central bore extends through the thickness of each cooling plate).
Regarding claim 4, Kuboki in view of Erdman as applied to claim 1 discloses the beam accelerator system of claim 1.
In addition, Erdman discloses that the central wall comprises a ring shape (FIG. 4, element 52);
the cooling chamber (FIG. 3, elements 70/72) comprises an inner annular surface (FIG. 3, surface of elements 70/72 closer to beam axis 16) and an outer annular surface (FIG. 3, surface of elements 70/72 further from beam axis 16);
the inner annular surface of the cooling chamber defines an outer annular surface of the central wall (annotated FIG. 3, below: surface A); and
each of the one or more return channels terminates at the outer annular surface of the cooling chamber (FIG. 3: return channel 68 terminates at the outer annular surface of the section 72 of the cooling chamber).
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 Kuboki in view of Erdman to include that the central wall comprises a ring shape; the cooling chamber comprises an inner annular surface and an outer annular surface; the inner annular surface of the cooling chamber defines an outer annular surface of the central wall; and each of the one or more return channels terminates at the outer annular surface of the cooling chamber, based on the additional teachings of Erdman that this arrangement facilitates rapid temperature changes with high efficiency (Erdman, paragraphs 0004-0005).
PNG
media_image1.png
390
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1: Annotated FIG. 3 (Erdman)
Regarding claim 9, Kuboki in view of Erdman as applied to claim 1 discloses the beam accelerator system of claim 1.
In addition, Erdman discloses that the one or more cooling plate in the plurality of cooling plates is a unitary plate (FIGs. 3, 4: central body portion 78 of plate 52 is a unitary plate).
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 Kuboki in view of Erdman to include that the one or more cooling plate in the plurality of cooling plates is a unitary plate, based on the additional teachings of Erdman that this arrangement facilitates rapid temperature changes with high efficiency (Erdman, paragraphs 0004-0005).
Regarding claim 10, Kuboki in view of Erdman as applied to claim 1 discloses the beam accelerator system of claim 1.
In addition, Kuboki discloses that the plurality of cooling plates are formed from a thermally conductive material selected from the group consisting of copper, silver, aluminum, and tungsten (page 1030, column 2, second paragraph, lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 15, Kuboki discloses a method comprising:
generating a plasma (page 1031, column 2, last paragraph) in a plasma channel of a plasma window (FIGs. 2, 4a: plasma window comprising cooling plates 1-5), wherein:
the plasma window is positioned between and fluidly coupled to an anode (FIG. 4a, anode) and a cathode housing (FIG. 4a, cathode housing),
a plurality of cathodes are housed in the cathode housing (page 1030, column 2, second paragraph, lines 6-7);
the plasma window comprises a plurality of cooling plates (FIG. 4a, cooling plates 1-5), each cooling plate comprises an aperture that is aligned with an aperture in one or more adjacent cooling plate to form the plasma channel (FIG. 4a, central bore), and
one or more cooling plates of the plurality of cooling plates comprises:
a central wall surrounding the aperture (FIG. 4a, walls of cooling plates 1-5 surrounding the central bore);
one or more impingement channels entering the cooling plate from an outer edge of the cooling plate and extending toward the aperture (FIG. 4b and caption: supply line tubes entering the cooling plates from the outside of the cooling plates toward the central bore); and
one or more return channels entering the cooling plate from the outer edge of the cooling plate and extending toward the aperture (FIG. 4b and caption: return line tubes entering the cooling plates from the outside of the cooling plates toward the central bore);
directing a beam from a low-pressure chamber (FIG. 2, element P1) through the plasma disposed in the plasma channel of the plasma window (FIG. 4a, arc) and into a target chamber, wherein the target chamber houses a target gas (FIG. 2, caption, Ar/He gas chamber); and
directing a cooling fluid through the one or more impingement channels such that the cooling fluid impinges the central wall, transferring heat from the central wall to the cooling fluid, which then flows as a heated cooling fluid into the one or more return channels (FIG. 4b caption).
Kuboki fails to disclose that the cooling chamber surrounds the central wall; and an ion beam generated by an ion accelerator.
However, Erdman discloses a cooling chamber (FIG. 3, elements 70, 72) surrounding the central wall (FIG. 3, element 52); and
an ion beam generated by an ion accelerator (paragraph 0014, lines 1-2).
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 Kuboki to include that the cooling chamber surrounds the central wall; and an ion beam generated by an ion accelerator, based on the teachings of Erdman that this arrangement facilitates rapid temperature changes with high efficiency (Erdman, paragraphs 0004-0005).
Regarding claim 16, Kuboki in view of Erdman as applied to claim 15 discloses the method of claim 15.
In addition, Kuboki discloses that generating the plasma in the plasma channel comprises applying an input voltage to the target gas, thereby heating and ionizing a portion of the target gas to form the plasma (paragraph spanning the end of page 1031 to page 1032).
Regarding claim 18, Kuboki in view of Erdman as applied to claim 15 discloses the method of claim 15.
In addition, Erdman discloses that the central wall comprises a ring shape (FIG. 4, element 52);
the cooling chamber (FIG. 3, elements 70/72) comprises an inner annular surface (FIG. 3, surface of elements 70/72 closer to beam axis 16) and an outer annular surface (FIG. 3, surface of elements 70/72 further from beam axis 16);
the inner annular surface of the cooling chamber defines an outer annular surface of the central wall (annotated FIG. 3: surface A); and
each of the one or more return channels terminates at the outer annular surface of the cooling chamber (FIG. 3: return channel 68 terminates at the outer annular surface of the section 72 of the cooling chamber).
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 Kuboki in view of Erdman to include that the central wall comprises a ring shape; the cooling chamber comprises an inner annular surface and an outer annular surface; the inner annular surface of the cooling chamber defines an outer annular surface of the central wall; and each of the one or more return channels terminates at the outer annular surface of the cooling chamber, based on the additional teachings of Erdman that this arrangement facilitates rapid temperature changes with high efficiency (Erdman, paragraphs 0004-0005).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuboki in view of Erdman as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Ye et al. (CN Patent No. 215935148 U), hereinafter Ye (English machine translation provided in a prior office action).
Regarding claim 5, Kuboki in view of Erdman as applied to claim 4 discloses the beam accelerator system of claim 4.
In addition, Erdman discloses that the cooling chamber comprises a width defined by a radial distance between the inner annular surface of the cooling chamber and the outer annular surface of the cooling chamber (FIG. 3, width of elements 70/72 in the vertical direction).
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 Kuboki in view of Erdman to include that the cooling chamber comprises a width defined by a radial distance between the inner annular surface of the cooling chamber and the outer annular surface of the cooling chamber, based on the additional teachings of Erdman that this arrangement facilitates rapid temperature changes with high efficiency (Erdman, paragraphs 0004-0005).
Kuboki in view of Erdman fails to disclose that the width of the cooling chamber is from 2 mm to 16 mm.
However, Ye discloses that the width of the cooling chamber is from 2 mm to 16 mm (page 3, paragraph 6, lines 1-2).
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 Kuboki in view of Erdman to include that the width of the cooling chamber is from 2 mm to 16 mm, based on the teachings of Ye that this size is beneficial in avoiding the formation of a cooling “dead zone” where the temperature is higher than desired (Ye, page 2, ‘Contents of the Invention’ section, paragraph 1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuboki in view of Erdman as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Ye and Hu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0049468 A1), hereinafter Hu.
Regarding claim 6, Kuboki in view of Erdman as applied to claim 4 discloses the beam accelerator system of claim 4.
In addition, Erdman discloses that the cooling chamber comprises a width defined by a radial distance between the inner annular surface of the cooling chamber and the outer annular surface of the cooling chamber (FIG. 3, width of elements 70/72 in the vertical direction); and
the central wall comprises an inner annular surface (FIG. 3, surface of element 52 closer to beam axis 16), an outer annular surface (FIG. 3, surface of element 52 further from beam axis 16), and a width defined by a radial distance between the inner annular surface of the central wall and the outer annular surface of the central wall (FIG. 3: width of element 52 in the vertical direction).
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 Kuboki in view of Erdman to include that the cooling chamber comprises a width defined by a radial distance between the inner annular surface of the cooling chamber and the outer annular surface of the cooling chamber; and the central wall comprises an inner annular surface, an outer annular surface, and a width defined by a radial distance between the inner annular surface of the central wall and the outer annular surface of the central wall, based on the additional teachings of Erdman that this arrangement facilitates rapid temperature changes with high efficiency (Erdman, paragraphs 0004-0005).
Kuboki in view of Erdman fails to disclose that a ratio between the width of the cooling chamber and the width of the central wall is from 1.0 to 4.0.
However, Ye discloses that a minimum width of the cooling chamber is 8 mm (page 3, paragraph 6, lines 1-2), and Hu discloses that the width of the central wall is 4.5 mm (paragraph 0013 discloses that discs 12 have a minimum diameter of 10 mm, i.e., a minimum radius of 5 mm; paragraph 0014 discloses that the conduit 16 passing through the center of discs 12 has a minimum diameter of 1 mm, i.e., a minimum radius of 0.5 mm; therefore, the width defined by the radial distance between the inner and outer annular surfaces of the central wall is (5 mm – 0.5 mm) = 4.5 mm). Therefore, the ratio between the width of the cooling chamber and the width of the central wall is (8 mm / 4.5 mm) = 1.78, which falls in the range of 1.0 to 4.0.
Optimizing the width of the cooling chamber and the width of the central wall 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, Ye teaches the width of the cooling chamber as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., better cooling performance (Ye, page 5, paragraph 2), and Hu teaches the width of the central wall as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., the amount of constriction of gas flow (Hu, paragraph 0014). Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the width of the cooling chamber and the width of the central wall and identifies said widths as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the widths of the cooling chamber and the central wall to meet the claimed ratio since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuboki in view of Erdman as respectively applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Ganany et al. (WO Patent No. 2021/211246 A1), hereinafter Ganany.
Regarding claim 7, Kuboki in view of Erdman as applied to claim 1 discloses the beam accelerator system of claim 1.
Kuboki in view of Erdman fails to disclose that each of the one or more impingement channels and each of the one or more return channels are radially arranged and in an alternating fashion around the aperture.
However, Ganany discloses that each of the one or more impingement channels (FIG. 10B, elements 1028, 1030, 1032) and each of the one or more return channels (FIG. 10B, elements 1022, 1024, 1026) are radially arranged and in an alternating fashion around the aperture (paragraph 0067, lines 5-7).
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 Kuboki in view of Erdman to include that each of the one or more impingement channels and each of the one or more return channels are radially arranged and in an alternating fashion around the aperture, based on the teachings of Ganany that the arrangement of multiple impingement channels and return channels provides the benefit of controlling the temperature in separate heating zones (Ganany, paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 19, Kuboki in view of Erdman as applied to claim 15 discloses the method of claim 15.
Kuboki in view of Erdman fails to disclose that each of the one or more impingement channels and each of the one or more return channels are radially arranged and in an alternating fashion around the aperture.
However, Ganany discloses that each of the one or more impingement channels (FIG. 10B, elements 1028, 1030, 1032) and each of the one or more return channels (FIG. 10B, elements 1022, 1024, 1026) are radially arranged and in an alternating fashion around the aperture (paragraph 0067, lines 5-7).
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 Kuboki in view of Erdman to include that each of the one or more impingement channels and each of the one or more return channels are radially arranged and in an alternating fashion around the aperture, based on the teachings of Ganany that the arrangement of multiple impingement channels and return channels provides the benefit of controlling the temperature in separate heating zones (Ganany, paragraph 0033).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuboki in view of Erdman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Endo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0193216 A1), hereinafter Endo, and Ganany.
Regarding claim 8, Kuboki in view of Erdman as applied to claim 1 discloses the beam accelerator system of claim 1.
Kuboki in view of Erdman fails to disclose that the one or more impingement channels comprises four impingement channels that are radially arranged and separated from each other by 90°; and the one or more return channels comprises four return channels that are radially arranged and separated from each other by 90°, wherein: each of the four impingement channels is radially adjacent to two return channels and each of the four return channels is radially adjacent to two impingement channels; and each of the four impingement channels is radially spaced from adjacent return channels by 45°.
However, Endo discloses that the one or more impingement channels comprises four impingement channels (FIG. 7, elements 708) that are radially arranged and separated from each other by 90° (paragraph 0064, lines 8-11); and
the one or more return channels comprises four return channels (FIG. 7, elements 707) that are radially arranged and separated from each other by 90° (paragraph 0064, lines 12-16), wherein:
each of the four impingement channels is radially spaced from adjacent return channels by 45° (FIG. 7: each return channel 707 is spaced halfway between a respective pair of impingement channels 708, i.e., spaced apart from each impingement channel by 45°).
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 Kuboki in view of Erdman to include that the one or more impingement channels comprises four impingement channels that are radially arranged and separated from each other by 90°; and the one or more return channels comprises four return channels that are radially arranged and separated from each other by 90°, wherein: each of the four impingement channels is radially spaced from adjacent return channels by 45°, based on the teachings of Endo that evenly spaced arrangements of multiple impingement and return channels assist in preventing nonuniform diffusion of cooling gas (Endo, paragraph 0045).
Kuboki in view of Erdman and Endo fails to disclose that each of the four impingement channels is radially adjacent to two return channels and each of the four return channels is radially adjacent to two impingement channels.
However, Ganany discloses that each of the impingement channels is radially adjacent to two return channels and each of the return channels is radially adjacent to two impingement channels (FIG. 10B: the alternating arrangement of impingement channels 1028, 1030, 1032 and return channels 1022, 1024, 1026 places each impingement channel between two return channels and each return channel between two impingement channels).
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 Kuboki in view of Erdman and Endo to include that each of the four impingement channels is radially adjacent to two return channels and each of the four return channels is radially adjacent to two impingement channels, based on the teachings of Ganany that the arrangement of multiple impingement channels and return channels provides the benefit of controlling the temperature in separate heating zones (Ganany, paragraph 0033).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuboki in view of Erdman as respectively applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Gelbart et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0090875 A1), hereinafter Gelbart.
Regarding claim 11, Kuboki in view of Erdman as applied to claim 1 discloses the beam accelerator system of claim 1.
Kuboki in view of Erdman fails to disclose that an inner wall of the aperture is formed from a refractory material selected from tungsten or molybdenum.
However, Gelbart discloses that an inner wall of the aperture is formed from a refractory material selected from tungsten or molybdenum (paragraph 0030, lines 1-7).
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 Kuboki in view of Erdman to include that an inner wall of the aperture is formed from a refractory material selected from tungsten or molybdenum, based on the teachings of Gelbart that this ensures the aperture maintains its strength at high temperatures and after repeated temperature variations (Gelbart, paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 20, Kuboki in view of Erdman as applied to claim 15 discloses the method of claim 15.
In addition, Kuboki discloses that the plurality of cooling plates are formed from a thermally conductive material selected from the group consisting of copper, silver, aluminum, and tungsten (page 1030, column 2, second paragraph, lines 8-11).
Kuboki in view of Erdman fails to disclose that an inner wall of the aperture is formed from a refractory material selected from tungsten or molybdenum.
However, Gelbart discloses that an inner wall of the aperture is formed from a refractory material selected from tungsten or molybdenum (paragraph 0030, lines 1-7).
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 Kuboki in view of Erdman to include that an inner wall of the aperture is formed from a refractory material selected from tungsten or molybdenum, based on the teachings of Gelbart that this ensures the aperture maintains its strength at high temperatures and after repeated temperature variations (Gelbart, paragraph 0030).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuboki in view of Erdman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu.
Regarding claim 12, Kuboki in view of Erdman as applied to claim 1 discloses the beam accelerator system of claim 1.
In addition, Erdman discloses that the central wall is a ring shape (FIG. 4, element 52) and comprises an inner annular surface (FIG. 3, surface of element 52 closer to beam axis 16), an outer annular surface (FIG. 3, surface of element 52 further from beam axis 16), and a width defined by a radial distance between the inner annular surface of the central wall and the outer annular surface of the central wall (FIG. 3: width of element 52 in the vertical direction).
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 Kuboki in view of Erdman to include that the central wall is a ring shape and comprises an inner annular surface, an outer annular surface, and a width defined by a radial distance between the inner annular surface of the central wall and the outer annular surface of the central wall, based on the additional teachings of Erdman that this arrangement facilitates rapid temperature changes with high efficiency (Erdman, paragraphs 0004-0005).
Kuboki in view of Erdman fails to disclose that the width of the central wall is from 4 mm to 16 mm.
However, Hu discloses that the width of the central wall is from 4 mm to 16 mm (paragraph 0013 discloses that discs 12 have a minimum diameter of 10 mm, i.e., a minimum radius of 5 mm; paragraph 0014 discloses that the conduit 16 passing through the center of discs 12 has a minimum diameter of 1 mm, i.e., a minimum radius of 0.5 mm; therefore, the width defined by the radial distance between the inner and outer annular surfaces of the central wall is (5 mm – 0.5 mm) = 4.5 mm).
Optimizing the width of the central wall 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, Hu teaches the width of the central wall as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., the amount of constriction of gas flow (Hu, paragraph 0014). Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the width of the central wall and identifies said width 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 width of the central wall to meet the claimed range since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuboki in view of Erdman as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kobernik et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0206323 A1), hereinafter Kobernik.
Regarding claim 17, Kuboki in view of Erdman as applied to claim 15 discloses the method of claim 15.
Kuboki in view of Erdman fails to disclose that the ion beam interacts with the target gas in the target chamber to produce neutrons via a fusion reaction.
However, Gorokhovsky discloses that the ion beam interacts with the target gas in the target chamber to produce neutrons via a fusion reaction (paragraph 0206).
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 Kuboki in view of Erdman to include that the ion beam interacts with the target gas in the target chamber to produce neutrons via a fusion reaction, based on the teachings of Gorokhovsky that this provides options for improved nuclear fuel cycles (Gorokhovsky, paragraph 0209).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 is allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach “an impingement channel wall that extends into and terminates within the cooling chamber” in combination with the additional limitations of claim 3.
The closest prior art of record, Erdman, teaches that the impingement channels (FIG. 3, element 66) terminate at the cooling chamber (FIG. 3, elements 70, 72), not in the cooling chamber. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach “an impingement channel wall that extends into and terminates within the cooling chamber” as currently claimed.
Claim 13 is allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach “a termination point of each of the one or more impingement channels within the cooling chamber” in combination with the additional limitations of claim 13.
The closest prior art of record, Erdman, teaches that the central wall is a ring shape (FIG. 4, element 52) and comprises an inner annular surface (FIG. 3, surface of element 52 closer to beam axis 16), an outer annular surface (FIG. 3, surface of element 52 further from beam axis 16), and a width defined by a radial distance between the inner annular surface of the central wall and the outer annular surface of the central wall (FIG. 3: width of element 52 in the vertical direction). However, Erdman teaches that the impingement channels (FIG. 3, element 66) terminate at the cooling chamber (FIG. 3, elements 70, 72), not in the cooling chamber. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach “a termination point of each of the one or more impingement channels within the cooling chamber” as currently claimed.
Claim 14 is allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach “a termination point of each of the one or more impingement channels within the cooling chamber” in combination with the additional limitations of claim 14.
The closest prior art of record, Erdman, teaches that the impingement channels (FIG. 3, element 66) terminate at the cooling chamber (FIG. 3, elements 70, 72), not in the cooling chamber. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach “a termination point of each of the one or more impingement channels within the cooling chamber” as currently claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Murakami et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0259505 A1), hereinafter Murakami, teaches a beam accelerator system comprising: an ion accelerator that generates an ion beam; a low-pressure chamber; and a plurality of entrance pathways for cooling fluid to enter a cooling chamber.
Issavi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0065203 A1), hereinafter Issavi, teaches four impingement channels configured to provide an entrance pathway for cooling fluid to enter a cooling chamber, wherein the four impingement channels are radially arranged and separated from each other by 90°.
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