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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group V, claims 24-25, 29-34, in the reply filed on 10/3/25 is acknowledged.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-34 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-22, 26-28 is/are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 21, 24-25, 29-34 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
PNG
media_image1.png
120
1248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
PNG
media_image2.png
89
869
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 34 recites “a straight beam exit is established” but it is unclear whether this refers to the structure of the exit or the direction of a beam.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 –
PNG
media_image3.png
281
1244
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by https://web.archive.org/web/20130703023824/http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=B884DCS&cat=173.
Regarding claim 21, K&J teaches a dipole magnet (see discussion of magnetized through thickness), comprising:
a non-gradient portion (on outer portion of the ring with parallel N and S sides) comprising a non-gradient top pole face and a non-gradient bottom pole face (top and bottom faces) that are parallel relative to one another (see image); and
a gradient portion (in inner portion of the ring with angled N and S sides) comprising a gradient top pole face and a gradient bottom pole face (see countersunk geometry) that are angled relative to the non-gradient portion and to one another (see double countersunk), wherein the gradient portion comprises a plurality of beam travel paths (e.g. photon beams or any other kind of beams may travel through the center hole).
Claim(s) 21, 29-30, 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aoki (JPH10283977A).
Regarding claim 21, Aoki teaches a dipole magnet, comprising:
a non-gradient portion (see e.g. fig 2, flat parts of 12 behind10, 13) comprising a non-gradient top pole face (e.g. behind 10) and a non-gradient bottom pole face (e.g. behind 13) that are parallel relative to one another (see figs, 1,2); and
a gradient portion (see e.g. around 6, 7) comprising a gradient top pole face (see 6) and a gradient bottom pole face (see 7) that are angled relative to the non-gradient portion and to one another (see fig 2), wherein the gradient portion comprises a plurality of beam travel paths (see fig 1, naturally comprises different beam paths).
Regarding claim 29, Aoki teaches a core structure (see entire core assembly, Aoki, fig 2: 12, Mj) having a first pole portion (see upper part of 12, Mj) and a second pole portion (see lower part of 12, Mj), wherein the non-gradient top pole face and the gradient top pole face are on the first pole portion (see fig 2), and wherein the non-gradient bottom pole face and the gradient bottom pole face are on the second pole portion (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 30, Aoki teaches a first winding (see Aoki, fig 2: 10) around the first pole portion (see upper part of 12, Mj); and a second winding around the second pole portion (see lower part of 12, Mj).
Regarding claim 33, Aoki teaches a void (e.g. center region between Aoki, fig 2: 6, 7) separating a first travel path of the gradient portion and a second travel path of the gradient portion (e.g. travel paths closer to left and right edge of fig 2: 11; alternately note divergence in fig 1; alternately note that beam divergence is natural result of mass separation).
Regarding claim 34, Aoki teaches a void (e.g. center region between Aoki, fig 2: 6, 7) separating a first travel path of the gradient portion and a second travel path of the gradient portion such that a straight beam exit is established (see Aoki, fig 1, at beam exit portion; alternately note beam exit space having straight structure and capable of being straight).
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_image4.png
158
934
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki, as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of Purser et al. (US 20060197037 A1) [hereinafter Purser].
Regarding claim 24, Aoki may fail to explicitly disclose an entry point of the dipole magnet comprises one or more chamfers configured to create a gradient in a direction of the beam without creating a gradient transverse to the direction of the beam. However, the use of chamfering edges was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed as a routine skill in the art to simplify manufacturing and avoid sharp corners. Alternately, Purser teaches using chamfered edges at the beam entry and exit points in order to enhance introduction of particles into the deflection region of the dipole (see e.g. Purser, [0070,75,76]), wherein an entry point of the dipole magnet comprises one or more chamfers (see [0070], e.g. fig 6) configured to create a gradient in a direction of the beam (see fig 6) without creating a gradient transverse to the direction of the beam (see fig 6, no gradient in this region). 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 Purser in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to improve control of the fields and/or provide simpler manufacturing, including improving entry and exit of the particle beam, in the manner taught by Purser.
Regarding claim 25, the combined teaching of Aoki and Purser teaches an exit point of one or more of the one or more beam travel paths comprises one or more chamfers (see Purser, [0076]).
Claim(s) 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki, as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of Cole et al. (US 3405327 A) [hereinafter Cole].
Regarding claim 31, Aoki may fail to explicitly disclose the core structure is laminated. However, the use of laminating core structures was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Cole teaches electromagnetic core structures for bending magnets are known to be formed from ferrite or laminated iron cores (see e.g. Cole, col 2, lines 53-61). 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 Cole in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable the intended operation of the system. It is noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 32, the combined teaching of Aoki and Cole teaches the laminated core structure is parallel to a magnetic field of the non-gradient portion (see Aoki, fig 2, part on the right, and these side portions on the opposite sides of 6,7, are all parallel to the magnetic field).
Conclusion
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