DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07 October 2026, with respect to claims 1-4, 7 and 9-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Non-Final Rejection of 08 July 2026 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 fails to meet the written description requirement for reciting “a controller comprising a memory soring instructions that, when executed by the controller, cause the pulsed ion accelerator to…”. Specifically, the remarks point to paragraph [0137] of the instant specification for reciting “controlling tilt angle electronically, either by adjusting the pulse potential or by minor steering of the (e.g. continuous) ion beam between various starting equipotential lines”. However, this citation does not suggest a controller comprising memory storing instructions that, when executed by the controller, cause the pulsed accelerator to perform the claimed steps. Instead paragraph [0137] teaches electronic control. As clear from the instant specification the electronic control is provided for by voltage supplies ([0023], [0025], [0038], [0060], [0063]). A voltage supply is generic not suggesting a specific species of a controller with memory with instructions stored thereon.
MPEP 2163.05 (II) recites “The introduction of claim changes which involve narrowing the claims by introducing elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure is a violation of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) ”
Here, while the specification supports a voltage supply, there is no support for the narrower controller having instructions stored in a memory as required by the claim to perform the claimed functional limitations when executed by the controller.
Therefore claim 21 fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 USC § 112(a).
Claim 22 fails to meet the written description requirement by virtue of it’s dependencies on rejected claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 7, 9 and 12-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In the closest prior art, Kobayshi in view of Hoyes teaches the apparatus as previously claimed that is capable of functioning in the claimed manner (see detailed discussion on pages 6-11 of the Non-Final Rejection of 08 July 2026). However, the claim as been amended to be a method actively requiring the steps of “applying voltages to said third plurality of electrodes that define the ion acceleration region as the ions pass therethrough so as to amplify the time front tilt introduced by the wedge-shaped electric field; wherein the at least one of said electrodes of the ion pulsing region for pulsing ions out of the ion accelerator is substantially parallel to said electrodes of the ion acceleration region”. Since Hoyes teaches the voltages applied to the third electrodes is to correct tilt (i.e. not amplify), the combined device fails to disclose this step in combination with claim 1 as a whole.
Claims 2-4, 7, 9 and 12-18 are allowed by virtue of their respective dependency on the independent claim 1.
Relevant art of interest to the applicant:
Brown (US pgPub 2013/0256524) teaches orthogonal acceleration similar to Kobayashi above.
Additionally, Verenchikov cited above or WO-2016174462 (cited in parent application) see figure 9a-9c for accelerator and plurality of electrodes may be used in combination with Hoyes to make obvious the claim 1 in a similar manner as Kobayashi discussed herein above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
