DETAILED ACTION
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 to Amendment
The amendment filed on 9 March 2026 has been entered.
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.130(a) filed 9 March 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-14, 16, 18-20 based upon Islam et al. (ISLAM, K. N., et al. "Modeling and simulation of relativistic multiple electron beam generation with different energies from a single-cathode potential for high-power microwave sources." IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 69.3 (2022): 1380-1388.) as set forth in the last Office action because where the authorship of the prior art disclosure includes the inventor or a joint inventor named in the application, an unequivocal statement from the inventor or a joint inventor that the inventor or joint inventor (or some combination of named inventors) invented the subject matter of the disclosure, accompanied by a reasonable explanation of the presence of additional authors, may be acceptable in the absence of evidence to the contrary. See In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982). However, an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that is only a naked assertion of inventorship and that fails to provide any context, explanation or evidence to support that assertion is insufficient. See EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 859 F.3d 1341, 123 USPQ2d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see MPEP 2155.01. In the present case, the prior art includes additional authors not listed as inventors whose presence is not explained by the affidavit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 9 March 2026, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 7 January 2026 has been withdrawn. Specifically, the amendments to the claims sufficiently clarify the metes and bounds of the protection sought.
Applicant’s arguments, see 5, filed 9 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 6 under 35 USC 102(a) over Santonja have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 7 January 2026 has been withdrawn. Specifically, the amendment to claim 1 to refer to a first inner electrode and second outer electrode narrow the scope of the claim to require two distinct electrodes, thus overcoming references where the inner electrode and outer electrode are inner and outer regions of the same electrode.
Applicant's arguments filed 9 March 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-14, 16, 18-20 under 35 USC 102(a) over Islam et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that inventor Khandakar Nusrat Islam filed an affidavit a declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) establishing that the subject matter relied upon from Islam et al. was disclosed by, or obtained from, the inventor or a joint inventor of the present application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Islam et al. lists Edl Shamiloglu, L.D. Ludeking, Andrey Andreev, Salvador Portillo, and Ahmed Elfrgani, in addition to Khandakar Nusrat Islam, as authors. Of these authors, only Khandakar Nusrat Islam and Edl Shamiloglu are listed as inventors. Khandakar Nusrat Islam’s affidavit does not allege that L.D. Ludeking, Andrey Andreev, Salvador Portillo, and Ahmed Elfrgani obtained the subject matter in question from himself or Edl Shamiloglu, nor deny that any part of the disclosure relied upon was written by L.D. Ludeking, Andrey Andreev, Salvador Portillo, and Ahmed Elfrgani. Accordingly, the affidavit is insufficient to invoke the 35 102(b)(1)(A) exception to the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection because the affidavit does not allege either that the disclosure of the reference was made by the inventor or a joint inventor, or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-14, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Islam et al. (ISLAM, K. N., et al. "Modeling and simulation of relativistic multiple electron beam generation with different energies from a single-cathode potential for high-power microwave sources." IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 69.3 (2022): 1380-1388).
Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
With respect to claim 1: Islam teaches “a method for generating multi-stream electron beams (throughout reference), comprising connecting a first inner cathode (4) to a cathode stalk (2); connecting a second outer cathode (3) to the cathode stalk (see Fig. 1); driving the cathode stalk with a pulsed power generator at a single potential (Table 1 “Cathode Potential”); producing a first electron beam from the first inner cathode (“inner e-beam”; see Fig. 2); and producing a second electron beam from the second outer cathode (“outer e-beam”; see Fig. 2)”.
With respect to claim 2: Islam teaches “The method for generating multi-stream electron beams of claim 1 (see above), wherein each of the inner cathode and the outer cathode comprise nested magnetically insulated coaxial diodes (MICDs) (page 1381 under “Design of the Nested MICD”)”.
With respect to claim 3: Islam teaches “The method for generating multi-stream electron beams of claim 1 (see above), wherein the first electron beam and the second electron beam are generated with different energies (see table 2)”.
With respect to claim 4: Islam teaches “The method for generating multi-stream electron beams of claim 3 (see above) wherein the first electron beam and the second electron beam have an energy difference of from about 5% to about 30% (see table 2)”.
With respect to claim 5: Islam teaches “The method for generating multi-stream electron beams of claim 4 (see above), wherein the first electron beam and the second electron beam have an energy difference of about 10% (see table 2)”.
With respect to claim 6: Islam teaches “The method for generating multi-stream electron beams of claim 1 (see above), wherein the first electron beam and the second electron beam are each generated with a comparable current (see table 2)”.
With respect to claim 7: Islam teaches “the method for generating multi-stream electron beams of claim 1 (see above), further comprising applying a voltage to the cathode stalk of from about 100 kV to about 500 kV (see table 1)”.
With respect to claim 8: Islam teaches “the method for generating multi-stream electron beams of claim 1 (see above), further comprising generating an electron beam density of from about 2x1012/cm3 to about 6x1012/cm3 (see tables 1, 2; since the cathodes of the disclosed invention and Islam have the same structure and are driven at the same voltage, they must necessarily produce the same electron beams)”.
With respect to claim 9: Islam teaches “The method for generating multi-stream electron beams of claim 1 (see above), wherein a radius of the inner beam (“inner cathode radius”) is from about 0.25 cm to about 0.8 cm (table 1) with 0.02 cm thickness (“cathode radius”, table 1)”.
With respect to claim 10: Islam teaches “The method for generating multi-stream electron beams of claim 1 (see above), wherein a radius of the inner cathode (ric) is from about 0.25 cm to about 0.8 cm (table 1), with a thickness of 0.02 cm (table 1)”.
With respect to claim 11: Islam teaches “The method for generating multi-stream electron beams of claim 1 (see above), a radius of the inner cathode (ric) is 0.7 cm (table 2 column d), with a thickness of 0.02 cm (table 1)”.
With respect to claim 12: Islam teaches “The method for generating multi-stream electron beams of claim 1 (see above), wherein a radius of the outer beam (rob) is 0.9 cm (table 1), with a 0.02 cm thickness (table 1)”.
With respect to claim 13: Islam teaches “a multi-stream traveling wave tube (TWT) (throughout reference), comprising: a cathode stalk (2); an inner cathode coupled to the cathode stalk (4); and an outer cathode coupled to the cathode stalk (3); and wherein a first electron beam and a second electron beam generated by the multi- stream traveling wave tube (TWT) have an energy difference of from about 5% to about 30% (table 2)”.
With respect to claim 14: Islam teaches “An electron beam generating apparatus (throughout reference), comprising: a cathode stalk (2); an inner cathode coupled to the cathode stalk (4); and an outer cathode coupled to the cathode stalk (3); and wherein a first electron beam and a second electron beam generated by the electron beam generating apparatus have an energy difference of from about 5% to about 30% (table 2)”.
With respect to claim 16: Islam teaches “The electron beam generating apparatus of claim 14 (see above), wherein a radius of the inner cathode is different from a radius of the outer cathode (table 1)”.
With respect to claim 18: Islam teaches “The electron beam generating apparatus of claim 14 (see above), further comprising a pulsed power generator configured to apply a voltage of from about 100 kV to about 500 kV to the cathode stalk (table 1)”.
With respect to claim 19: Islam teaches “The electron beam generating apparatus of claim 14 (see above), wherein: a radius of the inner cathode (ric) is from about 0.25 cm to about 0.8 cm (table 1); and a radius of the outer cathode (roc) is 0.9 cm with a thickness of 0.02 cm (see above)”.
With respect to claim 20: Islam teaches “The electron beam generating apparatus of claim 14, wherein a radius of the inner cathode (rib) is 0.675 cm (table 2); and a radius of the outer cathode (rob) is 0.9 cm (table 1)”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ponsen (US 3934167), which teaches a discharge tube with double walled cathode structure.
Bel (US 10490383 B2), which teaches a multibeam electron gun.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights