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
Examiner acknowledges amended Drawing: Fig. 8 and Claims 1-3, 7, 11, and 12, cancelled Claims 4, 5, and 8-10, and withdrawn Claims 13-17 in the response filed on 2/5/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the phase shims in Wolf are made of steel and disposed between two poles of the undulator. See Wolf at § 2.4 and 4.2 and FIG. 16. Applicant respectfully submits that “magnet” and “pole” are terms of art in the context of undulators and that at least Tables 3 and 4 of Wolf and FIG. 4 of Qian supports this conclusion. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation, based on the disclosure of Wolf that phase shims are placed between adjacent poles, to modify the undulator of Wolf (or to modify the undulator of Qian, based on Wolf) by placing the phase shims between adjacent magnets. Further, the phase shims of Wolf are not physically coupled to a structural keeper. See Wolf at FIG. 16. Moving the phase shims to either be between adjacent magnets, rather than poles, or to be physically coupled to the structural keeper would alter the tuning profile of the shims with no predictable outcome or expectation of success.
However, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Examiner recognizes that conventional undulators comprise of magnets and poles, wherein both are formed of magnetic materials. Due to the broad scope of the claim, the nomenclature of the claimed first magnet array and second magnet array do not patentably distinguish over the prior art use of “poles” and “magnets” unless specific properties or materials are addressed in the claims. Therefore, the terms “first magnet array” and “second magnet array” can correspond to the magnets and/or poles in a conventional undulator.
Wolf teaches that there are two types of shims to make the phase errors as small as possible, phase shims and gap shims (4.2 Phase Error Shims on Page 18). Both types of the shims are simultaneous used in undulators (4.3 Phase Error Shim Selection Algorithm on Page 20). As shown in Fig. 16, the phase shims, which corresponds to Applicant’s magnetic shim elements, are disposed along the central axis and between adjacent magnets (i.e. the magnetic poles) of either the first magnet array or the second magnet array.
Applicant’s arguments that the phase shims of Wolf are not physically coupled to a structure keeper are unpersuasive. Note that while Wolf do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Wolf was used as a teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely magnetic phase shims between adjacent magnets and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Furthermore, the limitation(s) "physically coupled" in the claims, the Examiner has given the term(s) the broadest reasonable interpretation(s) consistent with the written description in Applicants' specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1190, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2111. Specifically, the Examiner notes that this term merely requires the second plurality of tuning elements to be connected/joined to either the first structural keeper or second structural keeper. The instant limitation does not preclude the presence of one or more intervening components between the second plurality of tuning elements and the structural keeper (i.e. the claims are open to having the second plurality of tuning elements to be connected/joined to the first or second structural keeper via unrecited intermediate component(s)).
Examiner’s Comment
Regarding the limitation(s) "magnetic slug" in the claims, the Examiner has given the term(s) the broadest reasonable interpretation(s) consistent with the written description in Applicants' specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1190, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2111. Specifically, the Examiner notes that this term is merely a material that is magnetic.
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 1-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian, M. et al. “12th Int. Particle Acc. Conf.” JACoW Publishing, A New Method of Undulator Phase Tuning with Mechanical Shimming, 2021, pp. 2912–2914 (“Qian et al.”) in view of Wolf, Z. “Algorithms To Automate LCLS Undulator Tuning” LCLS-TN-06-8, pp. 1-33, April 10, 2006 (“Wolf”).
With regards to Claims 1 and 11, Qian et al. teaches a tunable undulator device comprising a first magnet array disposed along a central axis of the undulator device, a first structural keeper physically coupled to the first magnet array to support and maintain a position of the first magnet array, and at least one strongback structure physically coupled to the first structural keeper, the at least one strongback structure configured to support and maintain a position of the first structural keeper. Qian et al. teaches a first plurality of tuning elements (i) disposed along the central axis, (ii) physically coupled to the magnet array, structural keeper, or the strongback structure, (iii) configured to tune a magnetic field profile along the central axis, and (iv) including a plurality of mechanical shims including a non-magnetic material (brass) (Abstract, Fig. 4, Introduction, and Mechanical Shimming).
While one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a conventional undulator device comprises a second housing (second magnet array, second structural keeper, strongback structure, etc.) that will create a gap distance separating a first and second magnet arrays, Examiner notes that Qian et al. does not explicitly disclose the claimed second housing structure (i.e. second magnet array, second structural keeper, etc.). Qian et al. does not teach a second plurality of tuning elements as claimed.
However, Wolf recognizes that undulators have duplicate housing structures to create a gap distance separating the second magnet array from the first magnet array (Pages 18-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the structure shown in Fig. 4 of Qian et al. to create a gap profile between first and second magnet arrays in order to produce an appropriate undulator device that will produce high-intensity, tunable X-ray source.
Therefore, the prior art of record teaches a second magnet array disposed along the central axis, the second magnet array (i) disposed on an opposite side of the central axis from the first magnet array with a gap distance separating the second magnet array from the first magnet array, a second structural keeper physically coupled to the second magnet array to support and maintain a position of the second magnet array, at least one strongback structure physically coupled to the first structural keeper and second structural keeper, the at least one strongback structure configured to support and maintain a position of the first structural keeper and the second structural keeper, and a first plurality of tuning elements (i) disposed along the central axis, (ii) physically coupled to at least one of the first magnet array, the second magnet array, the first structural keeper, the second structural keeper, or the at least one strongback structure, (iii) configured to tune a magnetic field profile along the central axis between the first magnet array and the second magnet array, and (iv) including a plurality of mechanical shims including a non-magnetic material.
Wolf further teaches that in the shimming process for undulators, two types of shims are used to make phase errors as small as possible – phase shims made of steel (i.e. magnetic) (corresponds to Applicant’s second plurality of tuning elements) and gap shims (corresponds to Applicant’s first plurality of tuning elements). Wolf teaches that its phase shims are (i) disposed along the central axis, (ii) disposed between adjacent magnets of the magnet array (i.e. between the magnet poles), (iv) including one or magnetic shim elements (i.e. steel) (Pages 18-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate steel phase shims between the magnets in the magnet array in order to make errors as small as possible (1st ¶ under 4.2 Phase Error Shims on Page 18). Thus, the prior art of record teaches second plurality of tuning elements are physically coupled to either of the first structural keeper or the second structural keeper.
With regards to Claim 2, Qian et al. teaches each of the plurality of tuning elements is independently tunable to alter the gap distance along the central axis (Abstract, Introduction, Virtual Gap Shape, Mechanical Shimming, and Conclusion).
With regards to Claim 3, Qian et al. teaches the plurality of tuning elements are disposed between the structural keeper and the at least one strongback structure, and wherein the plurality of tuning elements further tune a distance between the structural keeper and at least one strongback structure (Fig. 4 and Mechanical Shimming).
With regards to Claim 12, the prior art of record teaches (i) the first magnet array, (ii) the second magnet array, (iii) the first plurality of tuning elements, and (iv) the second plurality of tuning elements are configured to generate a magnetic field along the central axis having a phase error of less than 3 degrees (Abstract and Phase Correction Results in Qian et al.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian et al. in view of Wolf as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 102956279 (“Zhang et al.”).
Qian et al. does not teach the first magnet array and the second magnet array comprise of a superconducting magnet.
However, Zhang et al. teaches an undulator comprising a plurality of permanent magnets, wherein the permanent magnets are a plurality of superconductive permanent magnets (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an appropriate magnetic material, such as a superconducting magnet, in its first and second arrays in order to generate magnetic fields with high magnetic induction intensity, so that the performance of the undulator can be improved (Abstract).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian et al. in view of Wolf as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20170184975 (“Nikipelov et al.”).
Qian et al. teaches the plurality of tuning elements comprising a plurality of mechanical shims (Fig. 4 and Mechanical Shimming).
Qian et al. does not teach its tuning elements comprise a plurality of physical spacers as claimed.
However, Nikipelov et al. teaches a plurality of physical spacers (146) disposed between the first magnet array (142a) and the second magnet array (142a) along the central axis, the plurality of physical spacers physically coupled to the first magnet array and the second magnet array, and a plurality of mechanical shims (e.g. 146 or relevant thereof) physically coupled to at least a portion of the plurality of physical spacers, each mechanical shim disposed between a physical spacer and at least one of the first magnet array or the second magnet array (Abstract, Figs. 10-11, [0007], and [0008]). 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 Qian et al.’s plurality of tuning elements have the claimed structure in order to provide the undulator with longevity ([0007] and [0008]).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights