DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Objection to Drawings:
The remaining objections have been overcome, with the exception that new figure 13 should be designated prior art and the anode is not clearly shown in the prior art. Moreover, figure 7 does not clearly show the claimed optical system. Figure 7 only states “only one light source shown”, since the specification is clear that the light source requires structure (see 112(f) interpretation below), the structure is necessary to understand the invention.
Specification objections:
The replacement sheet of figure 3 overcomes the specification objections.
Rejections under 35 USC 112(a):
By amendment these issues have been overcome, however upon amendment new issues have been arisen.
Rejections under 35 USC § 112(b):
Claim 1 is still indefinite because there is no structure to suggest what generates a gas puff. As a gas puff does not suggest structure, it is not clear whether the gas puff requires additional structure or is the result of operating the system in a particular manner. It appears from figure 13, that there is structure required to generate the gas puff.
The same applies to the magnetic field. Specifically, the magnetic field is not tied to any of the claimed structure, so it is unclear whether the magnetic field is generated from the claimed components operating in a certain manner or if additional components generate the magnetic field.
Prior art rejections:
The remarks take the general position that the applied art fails to disclose the amended subject matter. This has been found unpersuasive. Specifically, the claims are written as an apparatus. The amended subject matter is functional, therefore the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114 (II)). Here, the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim as discussed herein below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the optical system of claim 4; and the sensors incorporated into the overall system (i.e. claims 1/5/6) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figure 13 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an optical system configured to direct light to the anode along a different path than that taken by ions emitted” in claim 4. (lenses and/or fiber optic see paragraph [0057] of the published application)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1, 3-7 and 10-11 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 1 lacks written description for reciting “a cathode separated from the anode by a transport region configured to transport the ions from the anode to the target portion of the cathode based on an applied magnetic field”. There is no disclosure as to how the magnetic field is applied.. MPEP 2163.03 (I) recites:
“An amendment to the claims or the addition of a new claim must be supported by the description of the invention in the application as filed. In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 9 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 1989).”
Here, the specification is devoid of any disclosure of how the magnetic field is applied. For instance paragraph [0039]-[0040] of the published application teaches results of magnetic fields, however there is no disclosure as to how these fields are generated.
Claim 1 lacks written description for “a surface area of the cathode being greater than a surface area of the anode”. The instant specification is devoid of the relative surface areas of the anode and cathode. Indeed, it appears from figure 8 that the anode and the cathode are the same surface, suggesting that the surfaces are actually the same surface area. MPEP 2163.02 recites “If a claim is amended to include subject matter, limitations, or terminology not present in the application as filed, involving a departure from, addition to, or deletion from the disclosure of the application as filed, the examiner should conclude that the claimed subject matter is not described in that application. ”. Here, the specification is silent as to how to configure the gas source so that the result may be achieved, therefore the gas source configured to perform the claimed functional limitations fails to meet the written description requirement.
Claims 3-6 and 10-11 lack written description by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 10-11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a gas puff” is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim i.e. the anode or ion source, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the anode or ion source in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an applied magnetic field” is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim i.e. the anode or ion source or cathode, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the anode or ion source or cathode in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "pulsed ion source" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Moreover, claim 1 is vague and indefinite for reciting “an anode of pulsed ion source” because it is not clear whether the anode itself is pulsed ion source or if the anode is a component of the pulsed ion source.
Claims 3-6 and 10-11 are indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Derzon et al. (USPN 8,530,854).
Regarding claim 1, Derzon teaches an apparatus (figures 1-13),
comprising:
a anode (figs. 4-8 and 13, “anode” 104) of pulsed ion source configured to generate ions during an interaction with a gas puff (col. 13, lines 54-59 teach the micro gas puff can include a micro sale meso-scale X pinch configured electron beam that is combined with a noble gas to produce ions, gas puff from 301-302 creating a sheath at 318 or by pulsing the gas source. The anode sheath is configured to not generate ions when micro gas puff does not generate a micro puff or when the device is not in operation and configured to generate ions in a second time period as disclosed in col. 13, lines 54-59. Best seen in figure 13 where anode 104 is between two gas jets forming a sheath around 104. Alternatively, anode sheath interpreted to be z-pinch which is a plasma, which is operable to generate ions when micropuff is generated or no ions during a period when micropuff is not generated. See also figure 4-7 prior to plasma generated puff is applied (thus no ions generated), then figure 8 plasma generated (i.e. ions));
a cathode (106) separated from the anode (106 separated from 104 ) configured to transport the ions from the anode sheath to a target portion of the cathode based on an applied magnetic field1 within the transport region (ions produced by x pinch by micropuff and electron beam (col. 13, lines 54-57) (i.e. from tungsten tips of cathode 106 see footnote 2). Thus ions from plasma (i.e. sheath micropuff). Since voltages are applied to respective anode (col. 14, line 2) and the cathode (col. 13, lines 62-67) of opposite polarity and ions are charged particles (i.e. negative cathode, positive anode), positively charged ions will be directed towards the cathode (i.e. target region). Conversely, by switching the polarity of the anode and cathode, the apparatus is capable of directing negatively charged ions to the cathode (i.e. target region).2), without ionizing or thermal heating a solid surface of the anode (current between anode 104 and cathode 106 initiate the forming of a magnetic field as seen in figure 6 see col. 11, lines 27-33. Compression and heating occurs at the intersectional volume 318 (col. 11, lines 34-35). Final compression and breakaway of the gas puff feature from the heated quasi-spherical plasma at the intersectional volume 318 occurs in figure 8 (col. 11, lines 39-42). Thus the heating and ionizing occurs at 318 and the anode does not ionize or heat while the anode sheath is generating ions)
a surface area of the cathode being greater than a surface area of the anode (anode comprises gas puff structure as seen in figure 3, because the gas puff results in holes, the surface area of the cathode 106 is larger).
Regarding claim 3, Derzon et al. teaches a sensor (col. 6, lines 19-25).
Regarding claim 11, Derzon teaches wherein the cathode is configured to provide uniform electron flow over the anode (as seen in figure 13, symmetric electron emitter tips of the cathode provide a uniform flow directed over the anode 104)
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, 4-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Вовченкo (RU187270) (copy of publication and machine translation submitted herewith) in view of Derzon.
Regarding claim 1, Вовченкo teaches an apparatus ([0006] neutron generator), comprising: a anode ([0006], note anode, figure shows 11 as a cylindrical anode) of an ion source (plasma is formed thus ion source);
a cathode ([0006], cathode, 13 is a hollow cathode) separated from the anode by a transport region (space between cylindrical anode 11 and 13 in figure),
PNG
media_image1.png
628
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
configured to transport the ions to a target portion of the cathode (transport ions from target 12 to cathode, see page 5, lines 12-15) based on an applied magnetic field and an accelerating voltage within the transport region ([0006] magnetic field in a limited space near the cathode is formed by a spiral line and insulating effect of the magnetic field, [0007] teaches an accelerating gap), without ionizing or thermal heating a solid surface of the anode.
Вовченкo fails to disclose the remainder of claim 1.
Derzon teaches these deficiencies as discussed above.
Derzon modifies Вовченкo by suggesting a gas puff to form a sheath around the anode and generating ions from the sheath.
Since both inventions are directed towards neutron generators, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the gas puff suggested in Derzon in the device of Вовченкo because the repetitive micro plus can be robust and long-lived since plasma is not created from solid surfaces (col. 6, lines 6-9). That is, Derzon suggested the substitution of the solid target of Вовченкo with the advantage of a longer lived plasma.
Regarding claim 4, Вовченкo in view of Derzon teach an optical system configured to direct light to the anode or the anode sheath along a different path than that taken by ions emitted. ([0006] target on surface of anode the surface of which is formed under the action of a focused laser beam. That is, the beam is incident the anode via the target, wherein a laser will inherently transfer heat to the surface thereof, when substituted for the gas puff as suggested by Derzon the laser would strike the cold anode suggested in Derzon itself).
Regarding claim 5, Вовченкo in view of Derzon a light source configured to output light (Вовченкo, [0006] laser); one or more focusing elements configured to focus the light from the light source (Вовченкo, inherent optics to form focused laser) onto the anode along a path distinct from that taken by emitted ions (Вовченкo towards anode surface [0006], which is distinct from the emitted ions from plasma); and a vacuum region ([0010] teaches a vacuum chamber).
Regarding claim 6, Вовченкo teaches one or more sensors ([0020] detection of hazardous substances).
Regarding claim 10, Вовченкo teaches wherein the light source is configured to output the light in a uniform pattern ([0006] pulsed laser, thus a uniform pattern of pulses).
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
1 current between anode 104 and cathode 106 initiate the forming of a magnetic field as seen in figure 6 see col. 11, lines 27-33.
2 Additionally, as evidenced by Derzon et al. (USPN 9,681,846) in discussion of US8530854 accelerating the damaging particles from the nozzle towards an opposing electrode having a perforation through which the charged particles can proceed towards a stop plate (col. 3, lines 40-41 and col. 3, lines 59-67 through col. 4, lines 1-6). Note ‘854 also teaches the cathode has a screen as discussed.
Prosecution Insights