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 .
Status of Claims
1. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
4. Independent claims 1, 14, and 19 (and many dependent claims) use the term “radially” but fail to introduce a reference point for this term, such as a structure having a circular or spherical shape. Accordingly, one has no means by which to determine whether a given direction extends radially. Similarly, the term, “inwardly” in claim 1 is indefinite, because no reference point is provided. The term begs the question “inwardly from what?”
5. Claim 5 is indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for the terms “the second radial thickness” and “the first radial thickness.” It appears that claim 5 should depend on claim 4 and it is has been interpreted in this manner for the purpose of applying prior art, below.
6. Regarding claim 9, the recitation “wherein the mounting rim defines portions of a torus” is unclear. Does this mean that the rim itself is somehow partially toroidal in shape or that it cooperates with another structure to form a portion of a torus? Additionally, what qualifies as a portion of a torus? It would seem that nearly any circular shape or any ring shape could be interpreted as a portion of a torus.
7. Regarding claim 14, the claim first introduces “a plurality of second cells” and then further refers to “a second cell.” It is unclear whether the subsequent recitation is intended to refer to a particular one of the previously introduced second cells or to introduce another type of cell.
8. Regarding claim 15, the recitation “a second” center is unclear because claim 14 already introduces “each second cell having a second center.” Is claim 15 intended to refer to “the second center” already introduced?
9. Regarding claim 16, the recitation “the mounting rim” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 14 introduces “an upper rim.” Are these structures the same or are there two different rims?
10. Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 because it depends on a rejected claim.
Claim Objections
11. Claim 20 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 18. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
12. It appears that Applicant intended claim 20 to depend from claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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 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.
14. For applicant's benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
15. 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.
16. Claims 1-3, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellows, US 2021/0136906 in view of Thorson, et al., “Convergence electrostatic potential, and density measurements in a spherically convergent ion focus.”
17. Regarding claim 1, Fellows discloses an inertial electrostatic confinement fusion ([0001]) electrode assembly (Figs. 2, 3, 4) comprising:
a first electrode (33) comprised of a multiplicity of first bar segments (17) which are joined together to define a plurality of first cells (331; see Fig. 3); a second electrode (34) positioned within the first electrode, the second electrode comprised of a multiplicity of second bar segments (20) which are joined together to define a plurality of second cells (Fig. 3); wherein the first electrode is aligned with the second electrode such that each first cell of the first electrode is positioned to be spaced radially outwardly of a second cell of the second electrode (see Figs. 2, 4); and a mount (131) which supports the multiplicity of first bar segments (see Figs. 2, 4 and [0022]) and engageable for supporting the first electrode within a vacuum chamber (11: see Figs. 2 and 4 and [0022]).
Thorson teaches an inertial electrostatic confinement fusion (see p. 4 “I. Introduction,” para. 1) electrode assembly (see Fig. 3), comprising a mounting rim (“HV stalk and inner grid support”) supporting first and second electrodes, the mounting rim being positioned above the second electrode (see annotated Fig. 3 below) and having a central opening configured to receive an electrical conductor extending to the second electrode (the mounting rim has a central hole), wherein the mounting rim has a continuous curved surface which faces inwardly (the perimeter of the hole is a curved surface facing inwardly with respect to the perimeter of the rim), the mounting rim being engageable for supporting the first electrode within a vacuum chamber (see Fig. 3: “inner grid support”).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the electrode mounting structure taught by Thorson to the IEC device of Fellows for the predictable purpose of reducing the number of penetrations through the vacuum chamber assembly, thereby mitigating the risk of leaks.
PNG
media_image1.png
382
928
media_image1.png
Greyscale
18. Regarding claims 2 and 3, the combination of the mounting structure of Thorson with the device of Fellows makes claim 1 obvious. Fellows further discloses a device wherein the plurality of first cells and the plurality of second cells are hexagonal (see Fig. 3), and each first cell overlies a second cell of a like number of sides (see Figs. 2 and 3).
19. Regarding claim 9, the combination of the mounting structure of Thorson with the device of Fellows makes claim 1 obvious. Fellows further discloses a device wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are positioned about a common center (see Figs. 2 and 4), while Thorson further teaches a mounting rim defining portions of a torus (the mounting rim is an annular plate, which is a cross section of a torus) having a center which is positioned about a center line which intersects the common center (see Thorson Fig. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the electrode mounting structure taught by Thorson to the IEC device of Fellows for the reasons stated above.
20. Regarding claim 10, the combination of the mounting structure of Thorson with the device of Fellows makes claim 1 obvious. Fellows further discloses a device wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are positioned about a common center, and wherein each first bar segment has a center plane passing through its center, and wherein each center plane intersects the common center (see Figs. 2 and 4).
21. Regarding claim 13, the combination of the mounting structure of Thorson with the device of Fellows makes claim 1 obvious. Thorson further teaches a mounting rim further comprising a cylindrical wall which extends upwardly from the mounting rim which is configured for mounting to an overlying portion of a vacuum vessel (see annotated Fig. 3 above). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the electrode mounting structure taught by Thorson to the IEC device of Fellows for the reasons stated above.
22. Regarding claim 14, Fellows discloses an inertial electrostatic confinement fusion ([0001]) electrode assembly (Figs. 2, 3, 4) comprising:
a first electrode (33) comprised of a multiplicity of first bar segments (17) which are joined together to define a plurality of first cells (331; see Fig. 3); a second electrode (34) positioned within the first electrode, the second electrode comprised of a multiplicity of second bar segments (20) which are joined together to define a plurality of second cells (Fig. 3); wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are positioned about a common center (see Figs. 2 and 4), wherein the first electrode is aligned with the second electrode such that each first cell of the first electrode is positioned to radially overlie a second cell of the second electrode, such that for each first cell, an imaginary line extends through a second cell and a center of said first cell (see Figs. 2 and 4); and a mount (131) which supports the multiplicity of first bar segments (see Figs. 2, 4 and [0022]) and engageable for supporting the first electrode within a vacuum chamber (11: see Figs. 2 and 4 and [0022]).
Thorson teaches an inertial electrostatic confinement fusion (see p. 4 “I. Introduction,” para. 1) electrode assembly (see Fig. 3), comprising an upper rim (“HV stalk and inner grid support”) supporting first and second electrodes, the upper rim being positioned above the second electrode (see annotated Fig. 3 above) and having a central opening configured to receive an electrical conductor extending to the second electrode (see Fig. 3).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the electrode mounting structure taught by Thorson to the IEC device of Fellows for the predictable purpose of reducing the number of penetrations through the vacuum chamber assembly, thereby mitigating the risk of leaks.
23. Regarding claim 16, the combination of the mounting structure of Thorson with the device of Fellows makes claim 1 obvious. Fellows further discloses its mount is engageable for supporting the first electrode within a vacuum chamber (11: see Figs. 2 and 4 and [0022]). Thorson further teaches a mounting rim having a continuous curved surface which faces inwardly (the perimeter of the hole is a curved surface facing inwardly with respect to the perimeter of the rim). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the electrode mounting structure taught by Thorson to the IEC device of Fellows for the reasons stated above.
24. Claims 6, 7, 11, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellows, US 2021/0136906 in view of Thorson, et al., “Convergence electrostatic potential, and density measurements in a spherically convergent ion focus” in further view of Wulfkuhler et al., “Novel Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Fusion with Buckyball-shaped Multi-grids.”
25. Regarding claim 6, the combination of the mounting structure of Thorson with the device of Fellows makes claim 1 obvious. Fellows further discloses a device wherein each first bar segment is connected to two other first bar segments at a first vertex, and wherein each second bar segment is connected to two other second bar segments at a second vertex (see Fig. 3). Fellows is silent as to alignment between vertices of the first and second electrodes. Wulfkuhler teaches an inertial electrostatic confinement fusion (Abs.) electrode arrangement (Figs. 4, 5, 7), with multiple nested electrodes having cells aligned in a radial direction (see Fig. 7(a) and p. 5: “Both grids need to be aligned” and p. 8: “One ion-microchannel appears through every opening”). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the electrode alignment taught by Wulfkuhler for the predictable purpose of providing ion channels to direct ions to the center of the device with “longer lifetime and therefore a greater chance of the ionization of other particles” and to avoid “distortions of the electric field caused by grid asymmetries” (p. 4). Applying the alignment taught by Wulfkuhler to the electrode grids of Fellows would result in a device wherein each first vertex has a radially extending center line and each second vertex has a radially extending center line which aligns with a first vertex center line.
26. Regarding claims 7 and 15, the combination of the mounting structure of Thorson with the device of Fellows make claims 1 and 14 obvious. Fellows further discloses a device wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are positioned about a common center, and wherein each first cell has a first cell center and wherein each second cell has a second cell center (see Figs. 2 and 4).
Fellows is silent as to alignment between centers of the grid cells. Wulfkuhler teaches an inertial electrostatic confinement fusion (Abs.) electrode arrangement (Figs. 4, 5, 7), with multiple nested electrodes having cells with centers aligned in a radial direction (see Fig. 7(a) and p. 5: “Both grids need to be aligned” and p. 8: “One ion-microchannel appears through every opening”). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the electrode alignment taught by Wulfkuhler for the predictable purpose of providing ion channels to direct ions to the center of the device with “longer lifetime and therefore a greater chance of the ionization of other particles” and to avoid “distortions of the electric field caused by grid asymmetries” (p. 4). Applying the alignment taught by Wulfkuhler to the electrode grids of Fellows would result in a device wherein and wherein each first cell center is positioned on an imaginary radial line which extends from the common center through a second cell center and through said first cell center.
27. Regarding claim 11, the combination of the mounting structure of Thorson with the device of Fellows makes claim 1 obvious. Fellows does not teach the second electrode comprised of a titanium aluminum vanadium alloy. Wulfkuhler teaches an inertial electrostatic confinement fusion (Abs.) electrode that is a titanium aluminum vanadium alloy (p.4), noting that it “suffered from smaller deformations” than a stainless steel grid. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to select the Ti-Al-V alloy taught by Wulfkuhler for the material of the second electrode in the device of Fellows. Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
28. Regarding claim 19, Fellows discloses an inertial electrostatic confinement fusion ([0001]) electrode assembly (Figs. 2, 3, 4) comprising:
a first electrode (33) comprised of a multiplicity of first bar segments (17) which are joined together to define a plurality of first cells (331; see Fig. 3); a second electrode (34) positioned within the first electrode, the second electrode comprised of a multiplicity of second bar segments (20) which are joined together to define a plurality of second cells (Fig. 3), wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are positioned about a common center (see Figs. 2 and 4), wherein the first electrode is aligned with the second electrode such that each first cell of the first electrode is positioned to be spaced radially outwardly of a second cell of the second electrode (see Figs. 2, 4), wherein each first electrode first cell defines a plurality of first vertices where the first bars which make up a first cell join adjacent first bars, and wherein each second electrode second cell defines a plurality of second vertices where the second bars which make up the second cell join adjacent second bars (see Fig. 3); and a mount (131) which supports the multiplicity of first bar segments (see Figs. 2, 4 and [0022]).
Thorson teaches an inertial electrostatic confinement fusion (see p. 4 “I. Introduction,” para. 1) electrode assembly (see Fig. 3), comprising an upper rim (“HV stalk and inner grid support”) supporting first and second electrodes, the upper rim being positioned above the second electrode (see annotated Fig. 3 above) and having a central opening configured to receive an electrical conductor extending to the second electrode (see Fig. 3).
Fellows is silent as to alignment between vertices of the first and second electrodes. Wulfkuhler teaches an inertial electrostatic confinement fusion (Abs.) electrode arrangement (Figs. 4, 5, 7), with multiple nested electrodes having cells aligned in a radial direction (see Fig. 7(a) and p. 5: “Both grids need to be aligned” and p. 8: “One ion-microchannel appears through every opening”). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the electrode alignment taught by Wulfkuhler for the predictable purpose of providing ion channels to direct ions to the center of the device with “longer lifetime and therefore a greater chance of the ionization of other particles” and to avoid “distortions of the electric field caused by grid asymmetries” (p. 4). Applying the alignment taught by Wulfkuhler to the electrode grids of Fellows would result in a device wherein each first vertex is substantially radially aligned with a second vertex such that an imaginary line extends from the common center through said each first vertex and aligned second vertex.
Allowable Subject Matter
29. Claims 4, 8, 12, 17, 18 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Interviews
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.
Additional References
The attached Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892) cites additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-272-6878. 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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights