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 and Amendment Filed
Applicant’s response and amendment, filed December 18, 2025, has been entered. Accordingly, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1 and 22 are amended; claims 2-7, 16-21, 23, 25 and 26 remain as originally presented; claim 24 is canceled; claims 8-15 are withdrawn (see below).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I (claims 1-7 and 16-26) in the reply filed on August 25, 2025 is acknowledged. The examiner clarifies that claims 25-26 are part of the invention of Group I and will be examined along with the other claims in Group I. Accordingly, Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 25, 2025.
Previously Set Forth Rejections
The status of the rejections set forth in the previous Office action (mailed September 11, 2025) is as follows:
The 35 USC 103 rejection of claim(s) 1 and 4 as being unpatentable over McKeown et al. (PCT Publication No. WO94/14304) in view of Technical Data; 3MTM NovecTM 5110 Insulating Gas (2021) (hereinafter “3MTM Technical Data”) is hereby withdrawn.
The 35 USC 103 rejection of claim(s) 2, 3, 22 and 23 as being unpatentable over McKeown et al. (PCT Publication No. WO94/14304) in view of Technical Data; 3MTM NovecTM 5110 Insulating Gas (2021) (hereinafter “3MTM Technical Data”) and further in view of Homan et al. (PCT Publication No. WO2007/002288) is hereby withdrawn.
The 35 USC 103 rejection of claim(s) 5-7 as being unpatentable over McKeown et al. (PCT Publication No. WO94/14304) in view of Technical Data; 3MTM NovecTM 5110 Insulating Gas (2021) (hereinafter “3MTM Technical Data”) and further in view of Galiano et al. (PCT Publication No. WO2022/009237) is hereby withdrawn.
The following new grounds of rejection are set forth:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKeown et al. (PCT Publication No. WO94/14304) in view of Technical Data; 3MTM NovecTM 5110 Insulating Gas (2021) (hereinafter “3MTM Technical Data”) and further in view of Smith (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0248214).
In regard to claim 1, McKeown et al. teach a linear accelerator with microwave power (see Figs. 7 and 8) where the waveguide 112 is filled with a pressurized insulating gas, such as sulphur hexafluoride in order to prevent voltage breakdown (see page 23, lines 26-31). 3MTM Technical Data teaches 3MTM NovecTM 5110 Insulating Gas that is a sustainable alternative to sulfur hexafluoride for electrical equipment and arc quenching applications (see page 1). 3MTM Technical Data thus demonstrates that it was well known in the art at the effective filing date of the invention that 3MTM NovecTM 5110 Insulating Gas was an alternative to using sulfur hexafluoride. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the sulphur hexafluorine in McKeown with the 3MTM NovecTM 5110 Insulating Gas taught by 3MTM Technical Data. McKeown et al. are silent as to a gas management device configured to adjust a characteristic of the gas. However, Smith teaches that conventional electron linear accelerators (LINACs) include pressurized waveguides 104 that are pressurized by a system 107 with an insulating gas (sulfur hexafluoride) to prevent electrical breakdown in the waveguide from high electrical fields (see Fig. 1 and para. 0007). As Smith teaches a system 107 for pressurizing the waveguide 104, it can be considered a gas management device configured to adjust a characteristic (amount) of gas in the waveguide 104. Smith thus demonstrates that it was well known in the art to provide a means to manage the gas introduced into a waveguide in a LINAC. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the device of McKeown et al. with the system 107 of Smith in order to equip the device with the ability to adjust a characteristic (amount) of the gas introduced into the waveguide 112 of McKeown et al. In regard to claim 4, as noted above, McKeown et al. teach that the waveguide 112 is filled with a pressurized insulating gas but are silent as to the specific pressure of the gas. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to program the controller 40 of McKeown et al. to control the pressure in the waveguide to be less than about 90 psig in order to provide a pressure that would prevent the voltage breakdown that is taught by McKeown et al. See also page 2 of 3MTM Technical Data.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKeown et al. (PCT Publication No. WO94/14304) in view of Technical Data; 3MTM NovecTM 5110 Insulating Gas (2021) (hereinafter “3MTM Technical Data”) and Smith (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0248214) and further in view of Homan et al. (PCT Publication No. WO2007/002288).
In regard to claims 2 and 3, McKeown et al. are silent as to a carrier gas. However, Homan et al. teach a system for gas blending comprised of a dilute gas supply system 10 having a neat active gas source 12 and a diluent gas supply 14 (see Fig. 1). The diluent gas can be nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, etc., which constitute carrier gases (see paras. 0051 and 0067). In operation, neat active gas is dispensed from neat gas source 12 into discharge line 22 and line 22 contains isolation valve 17 and the neat gas is pumped bi mini-pump 28 through line 30 to line 36 for introduction to a static mixer 38 for mixing therein with the diluting gas stream flowing from diluting gas source 14 through line 32 to line 36 (see Fig. 1 and para. 0064). The resulting mixed dilute gas stream is flowed into line 40 (see para. 0064). Homan et al. thus demonstrate that the use of carrier gases to mix with another gas in electronic devices is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the device of McKeown et al. with a carrier gas, in the manner disclosed by Homan et al., in order to mix the first gas (as set forth above) with a carrier gas in order to further protect the waveguide 112 of McKeown et al. from voltage breakdown. Homan et al. are silent as to the molar percentage of the carrier gas. However, since Homan et al. teach the use of widely varied carrier gases, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a carrier gas with a molar percentage between about 60% and 90% in order to further protect the waveguide 112 of McKeown et al. from voltage breakdown. With further respect to claim 3, see pages 2-3 of 3MTM Technical Data. See also the above rejection for claim 4.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKeown et al. (PCT Publication No. WO94/14304) in view of Technical Data; 3MTM NovecTM 5110 Insulating Gas (2021) (hereinafter “3MTM Technical Data”) and Smith (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0248214) and further in view of Homan et al. (PCT Publication No. WO2007/002288) and further in view of Galiano et al. (PCT Publication No. WO2022/009237).
In regard to claims 5-7, McKeown et al. are silent as to a dielectric coating on the inner wall of the waveguide 112. However, Galiano et al. teach a microwave antenna 18 having a dielectric coating (see page 9, lines 19-24). Galiano et al. thus demonstrate that dielectric coatings for microwave antennas are well known in the art in order to enhance the transmission of the antenna. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the waveguide of McKeown et al. with a dielectric coating on its inner wall, in the manner disclosed by Galiano et al., in order to enhance the transmission of the waveguide 112.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-23, 25 and 26 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 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. Specifically, Smith (newly applied) teaches a gas management device that is conventionally known in the art (see the above rejection).
Furthermore, regarding applicant’s arguments as to claims 2-3 and 5-7 (see pages 9-10 of the response filed December 18, 2025, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. In addition, applicant has simply stated that the previous Office action does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness but does not point out the supposed errors in the previous Office action.
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 BEVERLY MEINDL FLANAGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4766. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached at 571-272-4764. 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.
/BEVERLY M FLANAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794