DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s amendments, filed 16 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been entered. The rejection of claims 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, filed 16 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
4. Applicant argues on pg. 7 that Degenhardt does not disclose or suggest forming the wide energy barrier within an empty inner space surrounded by the multiple intermediate electrodes. The argument is unpersuasive. Degenhardt teaches that a grid electrode can have only one opening to provide for a maximum transparency (column 29 lines 18-21). Such an opening design would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement for any grid electrode. See detailed rejection below.
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. Claim 15 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 15 recites the filter region, the deceleration region, and the acceleration region, which all lack antecedent basis since a filter region, a deceleration region, and an acceleration region are never introduced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Degenhardt (US-8203119).
8. Regarding claim 1:
Degenhardt discloses an electrostatic energy filter module (column 1 lines 59-61 teaches a retarding field analyzer 1) comprising:
a biasing circuit (fig. 10a, column 24 lines 13-15 teaches voltage drops caused by the resistors R1, R2, R3, R4 of the voltage divider 160b); and multiple electrodes including distal electrodes (column 1 lines 59-67 teaches an entrance grid electrode 10. Fig. 6, column 17 teaches electrode elements 122aa, 12ba in the retarding field region 20 below the filter grid electrode 4), an intermediate electrode that is upstream to the distal electrodes (column 1 lines 59-67 teaches a filter grid electrode 4. As shown in fig. 1a, the filter grid electrode 4 is upstream to the entrance grid electrode 10), and proximal electrodes that are upstream to the intermediate electrode (column 19, fig. 6 teach electrodes 122ab, 122bb in the accelerating field region 22. As shown in fig. 6 electrodes 122ab and 122bb are upstream of the filter grid electrode 4);
wherein the distal electrodes are configured to receive first biasing signals from the biasing circuit, and to form first equipotential lines that are parallel to each other and perpendicular to the optical axis (column 1 teaches an entrance grid electrode 10 at a second voltage V2. Column 24 teaches generating voltages for electrodes 122aa, 122ab. Column 2 teaches equipotential lines 14 formed coplanar to the entrance grid electrode 10, which is perpendicular to the optical axis);
wherein the intermediate electrode is configured to receive second biasing signals from the biasing circuit (column 1 teaches a filter grid electrode 4 at a first voltage V1); and
wherein the proximal electrodes are configured to receive third biasing signals from the biasing circuit (column 24 teaches voltage applying to the upper outer ring electrodes 122bb increase), and to form second equipotential lines that are parallel to each other and are perpendicular to the optical axis (column 18 teaches that the equipotential lines 14 in the retarding electric field region 20 are symmetrical to the equipotential lines 14 of the accelerating electric field region 22).
While the retarding field analyzer shown in figs. 1a, 6, 10a of Degenhardt does not specifically disclose that the intermediate electrodes are configured to form a wide energy barrier (column 32 teaches using two coplanar filter grid electrodes to form an energy barrier), Degenhardt in additional views and descriptions of the analyzer teaches the intermediate electrodes are configured to form a wide energy barrier within an empty inner space surrounded the multiple intermediate electrodes (Column 32 lines 30-41 teaches two coplanar filter grid electrodes to form a wide energy barrier. Column 29 lines 19-23 teaches that a grid electrode may have only one opening. In this case, the grid electrode may look like only one opening).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Degenhardt to include that the intermediate electrodes are configured to form a wide energy barrier and to utilize a single opening electrode design instead of a grid structure. Such modification would allow for improved energy resolution of incoming charged particles (as taught in column 32 lines 32-35). One opening has the advantage for a maximum transparency since there is no absorbing structure within the opening (column 29 lines 21-23).
While the retarding field analyzer shown in figs. 1a, 6, 10a of Degenhardt does not specifically disclose that wherein the multiple electrodes are disk-shaped, concentric, parallel to each other and define an optical axis, Degenhardt in additional views and descriptions of the analyzer discloses that wherein the multiple electrodes are disk-shaped, concentric, parallel to each other and define an optical axis (column 23 teaches that the cross section of the retarding field analyzer 1 of fig. 9b is circular and essentially coaxial with the optical axis 108. Column 27 figs. 15a-b teaches a circular filter grid electrode 4 and circular shaped entrance grid electrode 10 and that they are coaxially aligned with respect to symmetry axis 190. Column 25 fig. 11b shows a cross section of the retarding field analyzer 1 in a plane normal to the optical axis 108, the inner ring electrodes 122aa, 122ab are essentially coaxial with the optical axis 108. As shown in the figs. 9b and 11b, the electrodes are parallel to each other);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Degenhardt to include that wherein the multiple electrodes are disk-shaped, concentric, parallel to each other and define an optical axis. Such modification would allow for a homogenously distributed current to flow between the electrodes (as taught in column 27 lines 49-51).
9. Regarding claim 2:
Degenhardt discloses the electrostatic energy filter module according to claim 1. Degenhardt further discloses that wherein the distal electrodes are further configured to decelerate an electron beam (column 1 lines 59-67 teaches an entrance grid electrode 10. Fig. 6, column 17 teaches electrode elements 122aa, 12ba in the retarding field region 20 below the filter grid electrode 4. Claim 18 teaches a retarding electric field region to decelerate the charged particles. Claim 41 teaches that wherein the charged particle beam device is an electron beam microscope), the intermediate electrodes are configured to filter the electron beam to provide a filtered electron beam (column 1 lines 59-67 teaches a filter grid electrode 4. Column 1 lines 42-43 teaches an electrical potential barrier which rejects charged particles with an energy too low to overcome the potential barrier) and the proximal electrodes are configured to accelerate the filtered electron beam (column 19, fig. 6, fig. 11a teach electrodes 122ab, 122bb in the accelerating field region 22).
10. Regarding claim 3:
Degenhardt discloses the electrostatic energy filter module according to claim 2. Degenhardt further discloses that wherein an overall length of the distal electrodes does not exceed 5 cm (column 8 lines 60-64 teaches that due to space restrictions, the distance between entrance grid electrode and filter grid electrode may be smaller than 5mm).
11. Regarding claim 5:
Degenhardt discloses the electrostatic energy filter module according to claim 1. Degenhardt further discloses that wherein at least a majority of the first bias signals introduce a gradually increasing potential in a direction towards the intermediate electrodes along the optical axis ([0050] of the instant application teaches decelerating, by the distal electrodes, the electron beam. Col 2 lines 1-5 teaches a retarding electric field 6 within the retarding electric field region 20. Changing the sign convention used to describe the voltage does not distinguish the claim over Degenhardt since the resulting function of decelerating the electron beam via a voltage gradient is the same), wherein at least a majority of the second biasing signals introduce an even potential (column 19 lines 4-6 teaches that the filter grid electrode 4 is at a first voltage V1 of -100V. Column 32 lines 34-36 teaches two coplanar filter grid electrodes which preferably are at the same potential), and wherein at least a majority of the third biasing signals introduce a gradually decreasing potential in a direction away from the intermediate electrodes along the optical axis ([0050] of the instant application teaches accelerating, by the proximal electrodes, the filtered electron beam. Col 2 lines 18-20 teaches accelerating electric field region 22. Changing the sign convention used to describe the voltage does not distinguish the claim over Degenhardt since the resulting function of accelerating the electron beam via a voltage gradient is the same).
12. Regarding claim 6:
Degenhardt discloses the electrostatic energy filter module according to claim 1. Degenhardt further discloses that wherein the biasing circuit comprises a single voltage source (column 6 lines 19-21 teaches that the at least one further electrode element and/or the at least one ring electrode further are preferably electrically connected to a voltage source) and a network of resistors (column 23 lines 61-67 teaches a first set of resistors R1, R2, R3 and R4).
13. Regarding claim 7:
Degenhardt discloses the electrostatic energy filter module according to claim 1.
While one embodiment of Degenhardt discloses a single voltage source (column 6 lines 19-21 teaches that the at least one further electrode element and/or the at least one ring electrode further are preferably electrically connected to a voltage source), it does not specifically disclose that wherein the biasing circuit comprises voltage sources and networks of resistors.
However, in additional descriptions, Degenhardt discloses that wherein the biasing circuit comprises voltage sources (column 24 lines 59-62 teaches that the voltages for the electrodes are provided by means of individual voltage supplies) and networks of resistors (column 24 lines 1-11 teaches a same second set of resistors R1, R2, R3 and R4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Degenhardt to include that wherein the biasing circuit comprises voltage sources and networks of resistors. Such modification would allow for supplying multiple individual voltages to the electrodes (as taught in column 24 lines 60-65).
14. Regarding claim 8:
Degenhardt discloses a method for energy filtering (column 12 teaches a method for energy filtering), the method comprising:
biasing multiple electrodes of an electrostatic energy filter module, by a biasing circuit of the electrostatic energy filter module (fig. 10a, column 24 lines 12-15 teaches the voltages at different electrodes are generated through the voltage drops caused by the resistors R1, R2, R3, R4 of the voltage divider 160b), wherein the biasing comprises:
sending first biasing signals to distal electrodes of the multiple electrodes (column 1 teaches an entrance grid electrode 10 at a second voltage V2. Column 24 teaches generating voltages for electrodes 122aa), sending second biasing signals to an intermediate electrode of the multiple electrodes (column 1 teaches a filter grid electrode 4 at a first voltage V1), and sending third biasing signals to proximal electrodes of the multiple electrodes (column 24 teaches voltage applying to the upper outer ring electrodes 122bb increase);
forming, by the distal electrodes, first equipotential lines that are parallel to each other and are perpendicular to an optical axis defined by the multiple electrodes (Column 2 teaches equipotential lines 14 formed coplanar to the entrance grid electrode 10, which is perpendicular to the optical axis); forming, by the proximal electrodes, second equipotential lines that are parallel to each other and are perpendicular to the optical axis (column 18 teaches that the equipotential lines 14 in the retarding electric field region 20 are symmetrical to the equipotential lines 14 of the accelerating electric field region 22);
receiving an electron beam by the electrostatic energy filter module (abstract section teaches a retarding field analyzer to detect secondary charged particles. Claim 41 teaches that wherein the charged particle beam device is an electron beam microscope); and filtering the electron beam to provide a filtered electron beam (column 1 lines 59-67 teaches a filter grid electrode 4. Column 1 lines 42-43 teaches an electrical potential barrier which rejects charged particles with an energy too low to overcome the potential barrier).
The retarding field analyzer shown in figs. 1a, 6, 10a of Degenhardt does not specifically disclose forming, by the intermediate electrodes, a wide energy barrier. However, Degenhardt in additional views and descriptions of the analyzer teaches forming, by the intermediate electrodes, a wide energy barrier within an empty inner space surrounded the multiple intermediate electrodes (column 32 teaches using two coplanar filter grid electrodes to form a wide energy barrier. Column 29 lines 19-23 teaches that a grid electrode may have only one opening. In this case, the grid electrode may look like only one opening).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Degenhardt to include forming, by the intermediate electrodes, a wide energy barrier, and to utilize a single opening electrode design instead of a grid structure. Such modification would allow for improved energy resolution of incoming charged particles (as taught in column 32 lines 32-35). One opening has the advantage for a maximum transparency since there is no absorbing structure within the opening (column 29 lines 21-23).
15. Regarding claim 9:
Degenhardt discloses the method according to claim 8. Degenhardt further discloses decelerating, by the distal electrodes, the electron beam (column 1 lines 59-67 teaches an entrance grid electrode 10. Fig. 6, column 17 teaches electrode elements 122aa, 12ba in the retarding field region 20 below the filter grid electrode 4. Claim 18 teaches a retarding electric field region to decelerate the charged particles. Claim 41 teaches that wherein the charged particle beam device is an electron beam microscope); filtering, by the intermediate electrodes, the electron beam to provide a filtered electron beam (column 1 lines 59-67 teaches a filter grid electrode 4. Column 32 teaches using two coplanar filter grid electrodes to form an energy barrier. Column 1 lines 42-43 teaches an electrical potential barrier which rejects charged particles with an energy too low to overcome the potential barrier); and accelerating, by the proximal electrodes, the filtered electron beam (column 19, fig. 6, fig. 11a teach electrodes 122ab, 122bb in the accelerating field region 22).
16. Regarding claim 10:
Degenhardt discloses the method according to claim 8. Degenhardt further discloses that wherein the electron beam exhibits a width expansion rate that corresponds to an initial angular width of the electron beam when reaching the electrostatic energy filter module (column 2 lines 60-63 teaches the incoming charged particles approach the entrance grid electrode 10 not in parallel but in diverging directions with a significant divergence angle. Diverging directions here corresponds to a beam that is spreading out or expanding in width as it travels. Claim 41 teaches that wherein the charged particle beam device is an electron beam microscope), wherein an overall length of the distal electrodes does not exceed 5 cm (column 8 lines 60-64 teaches that due to space restrictions, the distance between entrance grid electrode and filter grid electrode may be smaller than 5mm).
17. Regarding claim 12:
Degenhardt discloses the method according to claim 8. Degenhardt further discloses wherein the biasing comprises: introducing, by at least a majority of the first biasing signals, a gradually increasing potential in a direction toward the intermediate electrodes along the optical axis; ([0050] of the instant application teaches decelerating, by the distal electrodes, the electron beam. Col 2 lines 1-5 teaches a retarding electric field 6 within the retarding electric field region 20. Changing the sign convention used to describe the voltage does not distinguish the claim over Degenhardt since the resulting function of decelerating the electron beam via a voltage gradient is the same); introducing, by at least a majority of second biasing signals an even potential (column 19 lines 4-6 teaches that the filter grid electrode 4 is at a first voltage V1 of -100V. Column 32 lines 34-36 teaches two coplanar filter grid electrodes which preferably are at the same potential); and introducing, by at least a majority of the third biasing signals, a gradually decreasing potential in a direction away from the intermediate electrodes along the optical axis ([0050] of the instant application teaches accelerating, by the proximal electrodes, the filtered electron beam. Col 2 lines 18-20 teaches accelerating electric field region 22. Changing the sign convention used to describe the voltage does not distinguish the claim over Degenhardt since the resulting function of accelerating the electron beam via a voltage gradient is the same).
18. Regarding claim 13:
Degenhardt discloses the method according to claim 8. Degenhardt further discloses that wherein the biasing circuit comprises a single voltage source (column 6 lines 19-21 teaches that the at least one further electrode element and/or the at least one ring electrode further are preferably electrically connected to a voltage source) and a network of resistors (column 23 lines 61-67 teaches a first set of resistors R1, R2, R3 and R4).
19. Regarding claim 14:
Degenhardt discloses the method according to claim 8.
While one embodiment of Degenhardt discloses a single voltage source (column 6 lines 19-21 teaches that the at least one further electrode element and/or the at least one ring electrode further are preferably electrically connected to a voltage source), the embodiment does not specifically disclose that wherein the biasing circuit comprises voltage sources and networks of resistors.
However, in additional descriptions, Degenhardt discloses that wherein the biasing circuit comprises voltage sources (column 24 lines 59-62 teaches that the voltages for the electrodes are provided by means of individual voltage supplies) and networks of resistors (column 24 lines 1-11 teaches a same second set of resistors R1, R2, R3 and R4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Degenhardt to include that wherein the biasing circuit comprises voltage sources and networks of resistors. Such modification would allow for supplying multiple individual voltages to the electrodes (as taught in column 24 lines 60-65).
20. Regarding claim 15:
The modified invention above teaches the electrostatic energy filter module according to claim 1, wherein the filtering region is preceded by the deceleration region and followed by the acceleration region (Col 2 lines 1-5 teaches a retarding electric field 6 within the retarding electric field region 20. Col 2 lines 18-20 teaches accelerating electric field region 22. The Col 2 lines 14-20 teaches that the electrons enter the retarding electric fielding region 20 before entering the accelerating electric field region 22).
21. Regarding claim 16:
The modified invention above teaches the electrostatic energy filter module according to claim 1, wherein the empty inner space being free of absorbing elements in a path of an electron beam through the wide energy barrier, including grid wires (Degenhardt column 32 lines 30-41 teaches two coplanar filter grid electrodes to form a wide energy barrier. Column 29 lines 19-23 teaches that a grid electrode may have only one opening. In this case, the grid electrode may look like only one opening, suggesting the claimed feature of the empty inner space. One opening has the advantage for a maximum transparency since there is no absorbing structure within the opening).
20. Regarding claim 17:
Degenhardt discloses an electrostatic energy filter module (column 1 lines 59-61 teaches a retarding field analyzer 1) comprising:
a biasing circuit (fig. 10a, column 24 lines 13-15 teaches voltage drops caused by the resistors R1, R2, R3, R4 of the voltage divider 160b); and a plurality of distal electrodes (column 1 lines 59-67 teaches an entrance grid electrode 10. Fig. 6, column 17 teaches electrode elements 122aa, 12ba in the retarding field region 20 below the filter grid electrode 4) configured to receive first biasing signals from the biasing circuit and to form a first plurality of equipotential lines that are parallel to each other and perpendicular to the optical axis in a deceleration region (column 1 teaches an entrance grid electrode 10 at a second voltage V2. Column 24 teaches generating voltages for electrodes 122aa, 122ab. Column 2 teaches equipotential lines 14 formed coplanar to the entrance grid electrode 10, which is perpendicular to the optical axis. Col 2 lines 1-5 teaches a retarding electric field 6 within the retarding electric field region 20);
an intermediate electrode directly adjacent to and upstream from the plurality of distal electrodes (column 1 lines 59-67 teaches a filter grid electrode 4. As shown in fig. 1a, the filter grid electrode 4 is upstream to the entrance grid electrode 10. Fig. 6, column 17 teaches electrode elements 122aa, 12ba in the retarding field region 20 below the filter grid electrode 4), wherein the intermediate electrode is configured to receive second biasing signals from the biasing circuit (column 1 teaches a filter grid electrode 4 at a first voltage V1); and a plurality of proximal electrodes directly adjacent to and upstream from the intermediate electrode (column 19, fig. 6 teach electrodes 122ab, 122bb in the accelerating field region 22. As shown in fig. 6 electrodes 122ab and 122bb are upstream of the filter grid electrode 4) and configured to receive third biasing signals from the biasing circuit (column 24 teaches voltage applying to the upper outer ring electrodes 122bb increase) and to form a second plurality of equipotential lines that are parallel to each other and perpendicular to the optical axis in an acceleration region (column 18 teaches that the equipotential lines 14 in the retarding electric field region 20 are symmetrical to the equipotential lines 14 of the accelerating electric field region 22);
While the retarding field analyzer shown in figs. 1a, 6, 10a of Degenhardt does not specifically disclose a plurality of intermediate electrodes, wherein the plurality of intermediate electrodes are configured to define a filtering region comprising an empty inner space surrounded by inner peripheral surfaces of the intermediate electrodes, the second biasing signals forming, within the empty inner space, a wide energy barrier through which an electron beam is filtered. Degenhardt in additional views and descriptions of the analyzer teaches the intermediate electrodes are configured to define a filtering region comprising an empty inner space surrounded by inner peripheral surfaces of the intermediate electrodes, the second biasing signals forming, within the empty inner space a wide energy barrier through which an electron beam is filtered (Column 32 lines 30-41 teaches two coplanar filter grid electrodes to form a wide energy barrier. Column 29 lines 19-23 teaches that a grid electrode may have only one opening. In this case, the grid electrode may look like only one opening, suggesting the claimed feature of the empty inner space. Column 1 teaches a filter grid electrode 4 at a first voltage V1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Degenhardt to include forming, by the intermediate electrodes, a wide energy barrier, and to utilize a single opening electrode design instead of a grid structure. Such modification would allow for improved energy resolution of incoming charged particles (as taught in column 32 lines 32-35). One opening has the advantage for a maximum transparency since there is no absorbing structure within the opening (column 29 lines 21-23).
While the retarding field analyzer shown in figs. 1a, 6, 10a of Degenhardt does not specifically disclose that wherein each of the distal electrodes, intermediate electrodes and proximal electrodes are disk-shaped, concentric, parallel to each other, and define an optical axis that passes through centers of each electrode. Degenhardt in additional views and descriptions of the analyzer discloses that wherein the multiple electrodes are disk-shaped, concentric, parallel to each other (column 23 teaches that the cross section of the retarding field analyzer 1 of fig. 9b is circular and essentially coaxial with the optical axis 108. Column 27 figs. 15a-b teaches a circular filter grid electrode 4 and circular shaped entrance grid electrode 10 and that they are coaxially aligned with respect to symmetry axis 190. Column 25 fig. 11b shows a cross section of the retarding field analyzer 1 in a plane normal to the optical axis 108, the inner ring electrodes 122aa, 122ab are essentially coaxial with the optical axis 108. As shown in the figs. 9b and 11b, the electrodes are parallel to each other) and define an optical axis that passes through centers of each electrode (as shown in fig. 11b, the optical axis 108 passthrough the center of each electrodes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Degenhardt to include that wherein the multiple electrodes are disk-shaped, concentric, parallel to each other and define an optical axis that passes through centers of each electrode. Such modification would allow for a homogenously distributed current to flow between the electrodes (as taught in column 27 lines 49-51).
21. Regarding claim 18:
The modified invention above discloses the electrostatic energy filter module according to claim 17, wherein the empty inner space is free of absorbing elements such that the electron beam passes through the filtering region without passing through grid wires or other absorbing elements associated with energy grid filtering (Degenhardt column 32 lines 30-41 teaches two coplanar filter grid electrodes to form a wide energy barrier. Column 29 lines 19-23 teaches that a grid electrode may have only one opening. In this case, the grid electrode may look like only one opening, suggesting the claimed feature of the empty inner space. One opening has the advantage for a maximum transparency since there is no absorbing structure within the opening).
25. Regarding claim 20:
The modified invention above teaches the electrostatic energy filter module of claim 17. Degenhardt does not specify that wherein the wide energy barrier has a width greater than 3.51 mm and less than 12 mm.
However, Degenhardt does teach that the distance between entrance grid electrode and filter grid electrode can be smaller than 100mm (column 8 lines 60-67). Degenhardt further teaches that the distance between the filter grid electrodes are close to each other with respect to the distance between entrance grid electrode and filter grid electrode. As such, the width between electrodes can be adjusted to fall within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). As such, Degenhardt’s teaching of a range smaller than 100mm makes the claimed range of greater than 3.51 mm and less than 12 mm obvious.
20. Claims 4, 11, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Degenhardt in view of Parr (US-20040065842).
21. Regarding claim 4:
Degenhardt discloses the electrostatic energy filter module according to claim 1. Degenhardt fails to disclose that wherein the multiple electrodes include between twenty and forty electrodes.
However, Parr discloses that that wherein the multiple electrodes include between twenty and forty electrodes ([0010] teaches the buncher comprises a series of preferably at least twenty electrodes. [0028] teaches the buncher comprises a series of twenty-nine circular substantially flat plate electrodes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Degenhardt in view of Parr to include that wherein the multiple electrodes include between twenty and forty electrodes. Such modification would allow for shaped electric field which is chosen so as to accelerate charged particles (as taught in Parr [0032]).
22. Regarding claim 11:
Degenhardt discloses the method according to claim 8. Degenhardt fails to disclose that wherein the multiple electrodes include between twenty and forty electrodes.
However, Parr discloses that that wherein the multiple electrodes include between twenty and forty electrodes ([0010] teaches the buncher comprises a series of preferably at least twenty electrodes. [0028] teaches the buncher comprises a series of twenty-nine circular substantially flat plate electrodes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Degenhardt in view of Parr to include that wherein the multiple electrodes include between twenty and forty electrodes. Such modification would allow for shaped electric field which is chosen so as to accelerate charged particles (as taught in Parr [0032]).
23. Regarding claim 19:
The modified invention above teaches the electrostatic energy filter module of claim 17. Degenhardt fails to teach that wherein the plurality of distal electrodes, intermediate electrodes and proximal electrodes include a total of between twenty and forty electrodes.
However, Parr teaches that that wherein the multiple electrodes include between twenty and forty electrodes ([0010] teaches the buncher comprises a series of preferably at least twenty electrodes. [0028] teaches the buncher comprises a series of twenty-nine circular substantially flat plate electrodes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Degenhardt in view of Parr to include that wherein the multiple electrodes include between twenty and forty electrodes. Such modification would allow for shaped electric field which is chosen so as to accelerate charged particles (as taught in Parr [0032]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LARRY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm. 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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. 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.
/LARRY LI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights