DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “a surface of a solid” [line 2]. However, claim 1 and subsequent dependent claims later refer back to this structure as “the solid surface”. The claims should be consistent. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggests “surface”.
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 1-17 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.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites “the surface” [lines 3, 5, 15, and 16]. However, claim 1 previously recites “a plasma chamber surface” and “a surface of a solid”. Therefore, it is unclear to which “the surface” refers. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “the solid surface”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the magnetic field" [line 3]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “[the] a magnetic field”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the magnetic field strength" [line 4]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “[the] a magnetic field strength”.
Regarding claim 2:
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the liquid surface" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “the liquid
Regarding claims 3 and 15-17:
Claims 3 and 15-17 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 1.
Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the material of the solid surface" in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “[the] a material of the solid surface”.
Claim 4 recites “the surface” [line 6]. However, claim 1, from which claim 4 indirectly depends, previously recites “a plasma chamber surface” and “a surface of a solid”. Therefore, it is unclear to which “the surface” refers. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “the solid surface”.
Regarding claim 5:
Claim 5 recites “a magnetic field”. However, claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, previously recites “a magnetic field” [line 3] and “magnetic fields” [line 6]. Therefore, it is unclear if applicant is attempting to claim yet another magnetic field or one of the previously claimed magnetic fields. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “[[a]] the magnetic field”.
Claim 5 recites “the surface” [line 2]. However, claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, previously recites “a plasma chamber surface” and “a surface of a solid”. Therefore, it is unclear to which “the surface” refers. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “the solid surface”.
Regarding claim 6:
Claim 6 recites “a magnetic field”. However, claim 1, from which claim 6 indirectly depends, previously recites “a magnetic field” [line 3] and “magnetic fields” [line 6]. Therefore, it is unclear if applicant is attempting to claim yet another magnetic field or one of the previously claimed magnetic fields. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “[[a]] the magnetic field”.
Claim 6 recites “the surface” [line 2]. However, claim 1, from which claim 6 indirectly depends, previously recites “a plasma chamber surface” and “a surface of a solid”. Therefore, it is unclear to which “the surface” refers. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “the solid surface”.
Regarding claim 7:
Claim 7 recites “a magnetic field”. However, claim 1, from which claim 7 indirectly depends, previously recites “a magnetic field” [line 3] and “magnetic fields” [line 6]. Therefore, it is unclear if applicant is attempting to claim yet another magnetic field or one of the previously claimed magnetic fields. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “[[a]] the magnetic field”.
Claim 7 recites “the surface” [line 2]. However, claim 1, from which claim 7 indirectly depends, previously recites “a plasma chamber surface” and “a surface of a solid”. Therefore, it is unclear to which “the surface” refers. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “the solid surface”.
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the liquid surface" in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “the liquid
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the liquid surface" in claim 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “the liquid
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the liquid surface" in claim 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “the liquid
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the liquid surface" in claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “the liquid
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the liquid surface" in claim 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “the liquid
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 recites “the magnetic field”. However, claim 1, from which claim 13 indirectly depends, previously recites “a magnetic field” [line 3] and “magnetic fields” [line 6]. Therefore, it is unclear to which magnetic field applicant is referring. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “the gradient of the magnetic field”.
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the liquid surface" in claim 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “the liquid
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh (US 2014/0357092).
Regarding claim 1:
Singh teaches a plasma chamber surface (plasma exposed surface, 301) [fig 2A & 0028-0029] comprising: a surface of a solid (301) which has a liquid (flowing protective liquid layer, 302) covering one side [fig 2A & 0028-0029]; one or more magnetic aspects (material of wall may be aluminum) present near the surface (301) on the side opposite to the liquid (302), said aspects (material of wall may be aluminum) creating or modifying magnetic fields (aluminum modified magnetic fields) [fig 2A & 0014, 0028-0029].
The claim limitations “wherein the liquid contains magnetic material that causes the liquid to be attracted to regions of higher magnetic field strength, and wherein the magnetic material comprises at least one of paramagnetic chemical elements, paramagnetic chemical compounds, ferromagnetic chemical elements, ferromagnetic chemical compounds, ferrimagnetic materials, superparamagnetic materials, and nanoparticles; and wherein the liquid is attracted to the solid surface and substantially continually covers a substantial portion of the solid surface” do not impart any additional structure. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). Said limitations are NOT a structure of the plasma chamber surface.
The claim limitations “regions on the solid surface where there is a gradient of a magnetic field such that a magnetic field strength increases going into the solid surface from the liquid” and “said aspects creating or modifying magnetic fields generated by at least one of ferromagnetic materials, paramagnetic materials, permanently magnetized materials, and electromagnets” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Specifically, said limitations do NOT impart structure to the plasma chamber surface because a gradient of a magnetic field is capable of being generated in the manner claimed at regions on the solid surface by external means [see instant claims 5-7].
Regarding claims 2, 8, 10-12, and 14:
The claim limitations “wherein sections of the liquid are exposed to at least one of a plasma and high-energy particles striking the liquid” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 3:
Singh teaches the solid surface (301) defines at least one of grooves, channels, indentations, dimples, and cavities (microgrooves, 340) [fig 2C & 0035].
Regarding claims 5-7:
The claim limitations “wherein the magnetic field is generated by means external to the region near the solid surface” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 13:
The claim limitations “wherein the liquid is a conductor and currents flow through the conductor causing forces together with the magnetic field to propel the liquid into motion through the at least one of grooves, channels, indentations, dimples, and cavities” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 15-17:
The claim limitations “configured within a device to magnetically confine plasma, the device comprising at least one of a tokamak, spherical tokamak, stellarator, toroidal pinch, Reversed Field Pinch, Field Reversed Configuration, mirror, tandem mirror, and Z-pinch” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 2014/0357092) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-17 above, and further in view of Monaghan (US 2002/0050453).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-17 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 4 and 9:
Singh teaches a material of the solid surface (301) defining the least one of grooves, channels, indentations, dimples, and cavities (microgrooves, 340) [fig 2A, 2C & 0014, 0035].
Singh does not specifically disclose the material of the solid surface comprises a magnetic material that is at least one of ferromagnetic, paramagnetic, and permanently magnetized, and wherein the at least one of grooves, channels, indentations, dimples, and cavities comprise magnetic elements that contribute to the gradient of the magnetic field into the solid surface.
Monaghan teaches the solid surface comprises a magnetic material that is at least one of ferromagnetic, paramagnetic, and permanently magnetized (vacuum chamber 1 could be constructed from ferromagnetic material) [fig 1 & 0032], and wherein the solid surface comprise magnetic elements (portions of 1) that contribute to the gradient of the magnetic field into the solid surface (ferromagnetic material affects magnetic circuits) [fig 1 & 0032].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the entirety of the solid surface of Singh (including at least one of grooves, channels, indentations, dimples, and cavities) to comprise a magnetic material/magnetic elements, as in Monaghan, to affect the magnetic circuit as desired [Monaghan – 0032]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
The claim limitations “wherein sections of the liquid are exposed to at least one of a plasma and high-energy particles striking the liquid” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ito (JP2009068071A), Cummings (US 2009/0288942), Kon (US 2018/0315629) teach a surface of a solid which has a liquid covering one side [fig 2, 3, and 5, respectively].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896