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 current Office action is in response to Applicant amendment filed on January 22, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding 112(f) interpretation, Applicant requests that the “means for manipulating the beam of electrons leaving the RF cavity from a helical orbit to an axial and substantially linear path” should be interpreted based on the full range of structures disclosed in the Specification. However, the Applicant does not specify any specific structure that able to perform the claimed function. As noted in the previous Office action, the Examiner has interpreted the limitation as the second electro-magnet disclosed in [0063] of specification. The second electro-magnet is the structure defined by the specification as capable of performing the claimed function.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 6-9, filed January 22, 2026, with respect to Claims 1-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. Regarding claims 1 and 8, Applicant argues that the Burt fails to disclose “a second electro-magnet” because the Office action does not address the actual limitation and refers the magnet as a cavity. However, as noted in the previous Office action, the Examiner states that the Burt fails to explicitly disclose the first and second electro magnets. Applicant further argues that [0056] of Burt is silent of a magnetic field. However, Burt discloses the coupling a RF field which is a magnetic field in [0056].
Applicant further argues that Burt fails to disclose “wherein the RF cavity is coupled to an RF source and configured to accelerate the beam of electrons axially entering the RF cavity with non-linear cyclotron resonance acceleration” because Burt teaches a linear accelerator in [0001]. However, Burt fails to disclose the acceleration of the electron beam axially. The claim fails to define how the RF cavity is able to accelerate an electron beam. The Examiner recommends clarifying how the electron beam is accelerated axially. The specification discloses that an RF wave is applied to the cavity to accelerate the electrons axially in [0061].
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7, and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the RF cavity is coupled to an RF source and configured to accelerate the beam of electrons axially entering the RF cavity with non-linear cyclotron resonance acceleration” should be changed to the limitation “wherein the RF cavity is coupled to an RF source, and wherein the RF source generates an RF wave configured to accelerate the beam of electrons axially entering the RF cavity with non-linear cyclotron resonance acceleration” in order to clarify how the electron beam is accelerated. Claim 2-7 are objected to by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “wherein the means for manipulating the beam of electrons from a helical orbit to an axial and substantially linear path” should be changed to “means for manipulating the beam of electrons leaving the RF cavity from a helical orbit to an axial and substantially linear path” in order to corrected the antecedence. Claim 18 is objected to by virtue of its dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites the limitation "the RF wave" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to introduce or define “a RF wave”. As currently written, the claim relies upon claim 1 which fails to define or introduce “a RF wave”. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “an RF wave”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-18, 20 are allowable.
Claims 1-7, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior arts are Burt (U.S. 2023/0413415) and Mishin (U.S. 2017/0265293).
Regarding claim 1:
Burt discloses a device, comprising:
an electron source (Fig. 1, 12) configured to provide a beam of electrons; and
an accelerator (Fig. 1, 14) including:
a radio frequency cavity (Fig. 1, 14 has multiple cavities 103-106) having a longitudinal axis, one or more inlets (Fig. 1, 14 has multiple cells and cavities), and one or more outlets (Fig. 1, 14 has multiple cells and cavities);
a first cavity configured to produce an axial magnetic field ([0056], cells are used to couple a RF field),
wherein the RF cavity is coupled to an RF source ([0056], coupled to RF generator) and configured to accelerate the beam of electrons axially entering the RF cavity with non-linear cyclotron resonance acceleration ([0057], acceleration; Abstract); and
a second cavity configured to generate an inverse cusp in the axial magnetic field ([0056], cells are used to couple a RF field).
Mishin teaches a first electro-magnet substantially surrounding at least a portion of the RF cavity (Fig. 1, 13)
a second electro-magnet located downstream of the one or more outlets of the RF cavity (Fig. 1, 13)
However, Burt and Mishin fails to disclose wherein the RF cavity configured to accelerate the beam of electrons axially entering the RF cavity with non-linear cyclotron resonance acceleration.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten to overcome the objections set forth above. Claims 2-7, and 19 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 8:
Burt discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, at an RF cavity within a first axial magnetic field, a beam of electrons via one or more inlets (Fig. 1, electron beam from 12 enters inlet 20);
applying a radio frequency wave to the RF cavity ([0056], cells are used to couple a RF field),
emitting the accelerated beam of electrons from the RF cavity via one or more outlets([0056], cells are used to couple a RF field).
Mishin teaches teaches manipulating the beam of electrons leaving the RF cavity from a helical orbit to a substantially linear path with a second axial magnetic field (Fig. 1, magnets 13 manipulate the beam).
However, Burt and Mishin fails to disclose wherein the RF wave is configured to accelerate the beam of electrons axially entering the RF cavity with non-linear cyclotron resonance acceleration.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record. Claims 9-15, and 20 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 16:
Burt discloses a device, comprising:
an electron source (Fig. 1, 12) configured to provide a beam of electrons; and
an accelerator (Fig. 1, 14) including:
a radio frequency cavity (Fig. 1, 14 has multiple cavities 103-106) having a longitudinal axis, one or more inlets (Fig. 1, 14 has multiple cells and cavities), and one or more outlets (Fig. 1, 14 has multiple cells and cavities);
a first cavity configured to produce an axial magnetic field ([0056], cells are used to couple a RF field),
at least one pair of waveguides coupling the RF cavity to an RF source configured to generate an RF wave ([0056], cells are used to couple a RF field).
Mishin teaches an electro-magnet substantially surrounding at least a portion of the RF cavity (Fig. 1, 13),
means for manipulating the beam of electrons leaving the RF cavity from a helical orbit to an axial and substantially linear path (Fig. 1, 13).
However, Burt and Mishin fails to disclose wherein the RF wave is a superposition of two orthogonal TE111 transverse electric modes excited in quadrature to produce an azimuthally rotating standing-wave mode configured to accelerate the beam of electrons axially entering the RF cavity with non-linear cyclotron resonance acceleration.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record. Claims 17-18 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
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 SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights