DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/2/25 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive.
The remarks argue the use of the Li NPL does not automatically render a later invention obvious. However, this is not what the rejection set forth. The rejection initially pointed out that due to the common inventorship (3 common inventors/authors), the structure appears to be similar. As the remarks point out, in the Li NPL there is no explicit disclosure of the adhesive properties claimed, only some kind of “glue”, but the use of generic glue is not relied upon to disclose the claimed insulative properties (e.g. thermal conductivity). However, the glue in the Li NPL has some kind of thermal conductivity, and the rejection shifts the burden to Applicant to demonstrate how the glue does not have the claimed properties.
The remarks argue that Fitzgerald burden shifting is inappropriate because there is no proper foundation to show all kinds of generic glue would inherently have the claimed thermal properties. Examiner disagrees, since the rejection is based on the specific glue used in the system by three of the inventors (who are co-authors of the Li article), which inherently has the claimed thermal properties. The response has not addressed this issue. See MPEP 2112.
Applicant is encouraged to disclose evidence (engineering files, BOMs, etc) to demonstrate what the adhesive in the Li NPL is, and if it differs from the adhesive used in the instant application. Examiner was unable to independently find this information about the Li adhesive.
The remarks argue that Li does not disclose the features of “the hermetic seal” and “the current input and output are configured such that an electrical current received at the current input traverses through the atomic vapor chamber to stimulate the atomic vapor source and exits the current output”. However, the rejection addresses this in view of e.g. the Roach reference.
The remarks argue the obviousness analysis fails to establish proper motivation to combine the cited references and every reference relied upon (Cashen, PELCO) is hindsight reconstruction. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The remarks argue Cashen is directed to a different environment and problem (removable interfaces in atom source assemblies). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Li NPL, Cashen, and Applicant’s invention are all directed to atomic beam generators. Some type of atomic material source is required for operation of these generators, and Cashen teaches a specific system that enables removable interfaces while also enabling and explicitly teaching the desirability of thermal insulation in the system (see e.g. Cashen, [0037-38]). It is noted that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))." MPEP §2123.
The remarks argue PELCO is a commercial adhesive and does not have specific motivation for use in the Li NPL’s specific atomic beam application. However, some kind of adhesive would have been required for the intended operation of the system, and the use of adhesives having thermally insulating properties was well known in the art. PELCO explicitly teaches effectiveness at “high continuous service temperature and low VOC’s for ultra high vacuum” which would have been obvious to try by a skilled artisan looking for some kind of adhesive required by the Li NPL to practice the system of the prior art.
The remarks argue the combination of Li and Roach would not result in the specific electrical coupling arrangement claimed. However, Roach explicitly teaches the electrical coupling claimed (“the current input and output are configured such that an electrical current received at the current input traverses through the atomic vapor chamber to stimulate the atomic vapor source and exits the current output”), (see Roach, p2384, col 1, last para), which would be required for the intended operation of heating the chamber and generating atoms.
The remarks also argue Li and Roach use “different technical applies[sic]” to atomic vapor generation, and Li is already operable without modification. However, Li does not teach away from use of dispensers, and the rejection discusses how it still would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to combine the teachings to enable the ability to quickly heat and/or switch out and/or provide different ions and/or to enable the use of ampoules and dispensers.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-12, 14-16, 18, 21 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14-16, 18, 21 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
PNG
media_image1.png
148
753
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
PNG
media_image2.png
151
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-12, 14-16, 18 is/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 thereof since the invention is not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, there is no support in the original disclosure for the following limitations.
Claims 1 and 14 recite “a thermal conductivity of between 0 and 35 Watts/meter-Kelvin” but no material exists with thermal conductivity of 0 Watts/meter-Kelvin.
Claims 12 and 14 recite “wherein the insulative adhesive layer has an electrical conductivity of between 0 and 100,000 Siemens/meter” but no material exists with electrical conductivity of 0 Siemens/meter.
To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) that the original disclosure establishes that the inventor had possession of the amended claims.
Claims 2-12, 15-16, 18, are rejected due to their dependency from claims 1 and 14.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image3.png
158
934
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-12, 14-16, 18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., Cascaded collimator for atomic beams traveling in planar silicon devices, Nature Communications, 10(1831) (2019) [hereinafter Li] in view of Roach et al., Novel rubidium atomic beam with an alkali dispenser source, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 22(6), Nov/Dec 2004 [hereinafter Roach].
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a collimated atomic beam generator comprising:
an atomic vapor chamber (see copper tube, fig 6: F) comprising an atomic vapor source (see Rb ampoule, p6, col 1, last para);
a collimator plate (see silicon collimator, E) comprising:
a first side facing the atomic vapor chamber (toward F),
an opposing second side (toward B); and
channels extending between the first side and the second side (see microchannels, see fig 6f);
an insulative adhesive layer (glue between plate and nozzle, see p6, col 1, last para)
wherein:
the collimator plate is configured to collimate atomic vapors generated by the atomic vapor source in the atomic vapor chamber (natural result of collimator, see p1, abstract);
Li may fail to explicitly disclose the adhesive layer creates a hermetic seal between the atomic vapor chamber and the collimator plate.
However, given the teachings of the importance of providing seals in the collimator and avoiding off-axis vapors (see Li, p6, col 1, last two para), It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide hermetic seals everywhere except at the outlet of the collimator plate.
Li may fail to explicitly disclose a current input electrically coupled to the atomic vapor chamber; and a current output electrically coupled to the atomic vapor chamber; the current input and output are configured such that an electrical current received at the current input traverses through the atomic vapor chamber to stimulate the atomic vapor source and exits the current output.
However, the use of dispensers was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Roach teaches a dispenser system for atom beams which can be quickly heated up and easily switched out (see Roach, p2384, col 1, last para); said system comprising a current input (required for intended operation of system, see one side of p2384, col 1, last para) electrically coupled to the atomic vapor chamber; and a current output (see other side of p2384, col 1, last para) electrically coupled to the atomic vapor chamber, such that an electrical current received at the current input traverses through the atomic vapor chamber to stimulate the atomic vapor source and exits the current output (see p2384, col 1, last para; see also fig 1); wherein the atomic vapor source is configured to generate an atomic vapor in response to the electrical stimulus (see p2384, col 1, last para). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Roach in the system of the prior art as a routine skill in the art to enable the ability to quickly heat and/or switch out and/or provide different ions, in the manner taught by Roach.
The combined teaching of Li and Roach may fail to explicitly disclose a ceramic adhesive having a thermal conductivity of between 0 and 35 Watts/meter-Kelvin.
However, it is unclear what the adhesive in Li is. However, it has been held that when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§2112-2112.02.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Li and Roach teaches the atomic vapor source comprises an alkali dispenser (see e.g. Roach, p2384, col 1, last para).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Li and Roach teaches the alkali dispenser is a Rubidium chromate dispenser (see Roach, p2384, col 1, last para).
Regarding claims 4-5, 10, 12, Li may fail to explicitly disclose the insulative adhesive layer has the claimed properties. It is unclear what the adhesive in Li is. However, it has been held that when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§2112-2112.02. Alternately, given that three of the authors in the Li reference are inventors in the current application, it appears adhesive materials used in one are usable as obvious variations in the other.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Li and Roach teaches wherein, in operation, the collimated atomic beam generator is configured to moderate radiation from the atomic vapor chamber (natural result of geometry of system, comprising separation and insulation between chamber and collimator) so that collimator plate and the atomic vapor are both cooler than the atomic vapor chamber (natural result of physical separation from the heated atomic vapor chamber where the heating elements are; see e.g. Roach, p2384, col 1, last para).
Regarding claim 7, Li may fail to explicitly disclose the insulative adhesive layer has a thickness of between 0.5mm and 5.0mm. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the thickness of adhesive layer, for example to fill larger or smaller gaps between surfaces. It would alternately have been obvious to add more adhesive around the outside edges, including a thickness between 0.5 and 5mm, to ensure a complete seal. It has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the shape as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 9, Li teaches an aspect ratio of from 1:1 to 100:1 (see 30:1, p2, fig 1, caption; p3, col 1, para 1); and the aspect ratio of the channels determine a divergence angle of the collimate atomic vapors (natural result of collimating beam through narrow channels to determine divergence angle based on physical parameters of the collimator channels, atom species, temperature, etc);
Regarding claims 11, the combined teaching of Li and Roach teaches atomic vapors generated by the atomic vapor source in the atomic vapor chamber thermalize with the collimator plate before emerging from the channels in a perpendicular direction (natural result of operating atomic vapor source, see Li, fig 1; note this operation is an intended use).
Regarding claim 14, Li teaches a collimated atomic beam generator comprising:
an atomic vapor chamber (see copper tube, fig 6: F) comprising an atomic vapor source (see Rb ampoule, p6, col 1, last para);
a collimator plate (see silicon collimator, E) comprising channels extending therethrough (see microchannels, see fig 6f);
an insulative layer (glue between plate and nozzle, see p6, col 1, last para)
wherein:
the collimator plate is configured to collimate the atomic vapor as it passes through the channels (natural result of collimator, see p1, abstract).
Li may fail to explicitly disclose the adhesive layer creates a hermetic seal between the atomic vapor chamber and the collimator plate.
However, given the teachings of the importance of providing seals in the collimator and avoiding off-axis vapors (see Li, p6, col 1, last two para), It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide hermetic seals everywhere except at the outlet of the collimator plate.
Li may fail to explicitly disclose a current input electrically coupled to the atomic vapor chamber; and a current output electrically coupled to the atomic vapor chamber; the current input and current output are configured such that an electrical current received at the current input traverses through the atomic vapor chamber to stimulate the atomic vapor source and exits the current output; wherein the atomic vapor source is configured to generate an atomic vapor in response to the electrical stimulus.
However, the use of dispensers was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Roach teaches a dispenser system for atom beams which can be quickly heated up and easily switched out (see Roach, p2384, col 1, last para); said system comprising a current input (required for intended operation of system, see one side of p2384, col 1, last para) electrically coupled to the atomic vapor chamber; and a current output (see other side of p2384, col 1, last para) electrically coupled to the atomic vapor chamber, such that an electrical current received at the current input traverses through the atomic vapor chamber to stimulate the atomic vapor source and exits the current output (see p2384, col 1, last para; see also fig 1); wherein the atomic vapor source is configured to generate an atomic vapor in response to the electrical stimulus (see p2384, col 1, last para). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Roach in the system of the prior art as a routine skill in the art to enable the ability to quickly heat and/or switch out and/or provide different ions, in the manner taught by Roach.
The combined teaching of Li and Roach may fail to explicitly disclose a ceramic adhesive having a thermal conductivity of between 0 and 35 Watts/meter-Kelvin and an electrical conductivity of between 0 and 100,000 Siemens/meter.
However, it is unclear what the adhesive in Li is. However, it has been held that when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§2112-2112.02.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teaching of Li and Roach teaches the atomic vapor source comprises an alkali dispenser (see Roach, 2384, col 1, last para).
Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons as claims 4-5 above.
Regarding claim 18, the combined teaching of Li and Roach may fail to explicitly disclose the insulative adhesive layer has a thickness of between 0.5mm and 5.0mm. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the thickness of adhesive layer, including a thickness between 0.5 and 5mm, for example to fill larger or smaller gaps between surfaces. It would alternately have been obvious to add more adhesive around the outside edges to ensure a complete seal. It has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the shape as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 21, Li teaches a collimated atomic beam generator comprising:
an atomic vapor chamber (see copper tube, fig 6: F) comprising an atomic vapor source (see Rb ampoule, p6, col 1, last para);
a collimator plate (see silicon collimator, E) comprising:
a first side facing the atomic vapor chamber (toward F),
an opposing second side (toward B); and
channels extending between the first side and the second side (see microchannels, see fig 6f);
an insulative adhesive layer (glue between plate and nozzle, see p6, col 1, last para) positioned between and coupling the atomic vapor chamber to the collimator plate (see same);
wherein:
the atomic vapors generated by the atomic vapor source in the atomic vapor chamber thermalize with the collimator plate before emerging from the channels in a perpendicular direction producing a collimated atomic beam (natural result of collimation using the structure discussed in Li, see fig 1a,b, etc);
the channels have an aspect ratio of from 1:1 to 100:1 (see 30:1, p2, fig 1, caption; p3, col 1, para 1), which aspect ratio determines a divergence angle of the collimated atomic vapors forming the collimated atomic beam (natural result of collimating beam through narrow channels to determine divergence angle based on physical parameters of the collimator channels, atom species, temperature, etc);
Li may fail to explicitly disclose the adhesive layer creates a hermetic seal between the atomic vapor chamber and the collimator plate.
However, given the teachings of the importance of providing seals in the collimator and avoiding off-axis vapors (see Li, p6, col 1, last two para), It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide hermetic seals everywhere except at the outlet of the collimator plate.
Li may fail to explicitly disclose a current input electrically coupled to the atomic vapor chamber; and a current output electrically coupled to the atomic vapor chamber; the current input and output are configured such that an electrical current received at the current input traverses through the atomic vapor chamber to stimulate the atomic vapor source and exits the current output; in operation, the collimated atomic beam generator is configured to moderate radiation from the atomic vapor chamber so that the collimator plate and the atomic vapor are both cooler than the atomic vapor chamber, enabling the current input and output to be placed in close proximity.
However, the use of dispensers was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Roach teaches a dispenser system for atom beams which can be quickly heated up and easily switched out (see Roach, p2384, col 1, last para); said system comprising a current input (required for intended operation of system, see one side of p2384, col 1, last para) electrically coupled to the atomic vapor chamber; and a current output (see other side of p2384, col 1, last para) electrically coupled to the atomic vapor chamber, such that an electrical current received at the current input traverses through the atomic vapor chamber to stimulate the atomic vapor source and exits the current output (see p2384, col 1, last para; see also fig 1); wherein the atomic vapor source is configured to generate an atomic vapor in response to the electrical stimulus (see p2384, col 1, last para). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Roach in the system of the prior art as a routine skill in the art to enable the ability to quickly heat and/or switch out and/or provide different ions, in the manner taught by Roach. Therefore, the combined teaching of Li and Roach teaches in operation, the collimated atomic beam generator is configured to moderate radiation from the atomic vapor chamber (natural result of geometry of system, comprising separation and insulation between chamber and collimator) so that collimator plate and the atomic vapor are both cooler than the atomic vapor chamber (natural result of physical separation from the heated atomic vapor chamber where the heating elements are; see e.g. Roach, p2384, col 1, last para; alternately note this is an intended use of the apparatus).
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-12, 14-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., Cascaded collimator for atomic beams traveling in planar silicon devices, Nature Communications, 10(1831) (2019) [hereinafter Li] in view of Roach et al., Novel rubidium atomic beam with an alkali dispenser source, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 22(6), Nov/Dec 2004 [hereinafter Roach], Cashen et al. (US 20210345475 A1) [hereinafter Cashen] and https://web.archive.org/web/20200928114238/https://www.tedpella.com/technote_html/16026_16026-10_TN_V3_06052013.pdf [hereinafter PELCO].
Claim 1 is rejected for similar reasons as in view of Li and Roach, above. However, in the event a reviewing body were to determine the adhesive of Li does not possess the claimed thermal conductivity properties, the following rejection is set forth.
it is unclear what the adhesive in Li is. However, it is noted that thermal insulation of components in an atom beam system were notoriously well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Cashen teaches a system to enable removable interfaces while thermally and electrically isolating a heated tube from the rest of an atom source assembly, comprising the use of standoffs (see Cashen, fig 2: 66, [0037-38]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Cashen in the system of the prior art, in order to achieve the ability to thermally and electrically isolate the system, in the manner taught by Cashen. While the combined teaching of the prior art may not explicitly disclose what or how the adhesive is utilized, the use of vacuum sealing compounds applied between interfaces was well known in the art, and given the functional electrical and thermal isolation provided by Cashen, the use of any convenient adhesive material (e.g. on/over the mating surfaces of fig 2: 64, 66, 46, etc) would have been obvious to a skilled artisan looking to use the specified adhesive or any obvious equivalent sealing adhesive, including, for example, PELCO 16026, which the manufacturer advertises as being particularly effective for operation at “high continuous service temperature and low VOC’s for ultra high vacuum.” It is noted that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2143. Therefore, the combined teaches the insulative adhesive layer has a thermal conductivity of between 0 and 35 Watts/meter-Kelvin (see PELCO, p2).
Claims 2-3, 6-7 are rejected for similar reasons as discussion in view of Li and Roach, above.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Li, Roach, Cashen, and PELCO teaches the insulative adhesive layer is further configured to provide thermal shielding to the collimator plate from the atomic vapor chamber (see e.g. Cashen, fig 2: 66, [0037-38]; note natural property of PELCO to provide thermal shielding).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Li, Roach, Cashen, and PELCO teaches the insulative adhesive layer is further configured to provide electrical shielding to the collimator plate from the atomic vapor chamber (natural result of using PELCO 16026).
Regarding claim 9, Li teaches an aspect ratio of from 1:1 to 100:1 (see 30:1, p2, fig 1, caption; p3, col 1, para 1); and the aspect ratio of the channels determine a divergence angle of the collimate atomic vapors (natural result of collimating beam through narrow channels to determine divergence angle based on physical parameters of the collimator channels, atom species, temperature, etc);
Regarding claims 10, the combined teaching of Li, Roach, Cashen, and PELCO discloses the insulative adhesive layer comprises the ceramic adhesive comprises a dispersion of aluminum oxide in an inorganic silicate aqueous solution (see description, PELCO).
Regarding claims 11, the combined teaching of Li, Roach, Cashen, and PELCO teaches atomic vapors generated by the atomic vapor source in the atomic vapor chamber thermalize with the collimator plate before emerging from the channels in a perpendicular direction (natural result of operating atomic vapor source, see Li, fig 1; note this operation is an intended use).
Regarding claims 12, the combined teaching of Li, Roach, Cashen, and PELCO teaches the insulative adhesive layer (PELCO) has an electrical conductivity of between 0 and 100,0000 Siemens/meter (this appears to be a natural property of the PELCO material (see published application [035])). It has held that when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§2112-2112.02.
Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons as in view of Li and Roach, above. However, in the event a reviewing body were to determine the adhesive of Li does not possess the claimed thermal and electrical conductivity properties, the following rejection is set forth.
it is unclear what the adhesive in Li is. However, it is noted that thermal insulation of components in an atom beam system were notoriously well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Cashen teaches a system to enable removable interfaces while thermally and electrically isolating a heated tube from the rest of an atom source assembly, comprising the use of standoffs (see Cashen, fig 2: 66, [0037-38]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Cashen in the system of the prior art, in order to achieve the ability to thermally and electrically isolate the system, in the manner taught by Cashen. While the combined teaching of the prior art may not explicitly disclose what or how the adhesive is utilized, the use of vacuum sealing compounds applied between interfaces was well known in the art, and given the functional electrical and thermal isolation provided by Cashen, the use of any convenient adhesive material (e.g. on/over the mating surfaces of fig 2: 64, 66, 46, etc) would have been obvious to a skilled artisan looking to use the specified adhesive or any obvious equivalent sealing adhesive, including, for example, PELCO 16026, which the manufacturer advertises as being particularly effective for operation at “high continuous service temperature and low VOC’s for ultra high vacuum.” It is noted that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2143. Therefore, the combined teaches the insulative adhesive layer has a thermal conductivity of between 0 and 35 Watts/meter-Kelvin (see PELCO, p2) and an electrical conductivity of between 0 and 100,000 Siemens/meter (see published application [035]).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teaching of Li and Roach teaches the atomic vapor source comprises an alkali dispenser (see Roach, 2384, col 1, last para).
Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons as claims 4-5 above.
Regarding claim 18, the combined teaching of Li and Roach may fail to explicitly disclose the insulative adhesive layer has a thickness of between 0.5mm and 5.0mm. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the thickness of adhesive layer, including a thickness between 0.5 and 5mm, for example to fill larger or smaller gaps between surfaces. It would alternately have been obvious to add more adhesive around the outside edges to ensure a complete seal. It has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the shape as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Roach, or Li, Roach, Cashen, and PELCO, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Roper et al. (US 12200851 B1) [hereinafter Roper].
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches each of the channels has a first end proximate the first side of the collimator plate and a second end proximate the second side of the collimator plate (see Li, fig 1f). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose a cross-sectional area of each of the channels proximate the first end is greater than a cross-sectional area of the channel proximate the second end. However, the use of channels having non-uniform channel width was well known in the art. For example, Roper teaches a multi channel collimator system, noting that channels may accommodate slight tapering based on different manufacturing techniques (i.e. a cross-sectional area of each of the channels proximate the first end is greater than a cross-sectional area of the channel proximate the second end), but while still providing effective collimation (see e.g. Roper, col 14, lines 28-31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Roper in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to enable the intended operation of providing effective collimation while enabling manufacturing with different techniques and lower tolerances, in the manner taught by Roper. It is noted it has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the shape as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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 extension fee 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 James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 am – 5:30 pm M-T, and every other Friday.
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 on (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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights