Notice of Non-Final Rejection
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pre-appeal brief, filed on 02/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103/102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the final rejection notice mailed on 12/03/2025 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of antecedent basis errors in the amended claims submitted on 03/10/2025.
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 11-13 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the longitudinal aperture" in line 2 and line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant has amended the independent claim 1 and replaced a longitudinal aperture with a slit. But did not replace the term the longitudinal base in the depending claims. Examiner suggest to replace the limitation ‘’the longitudinal aperture’ with the slit wherever appropriate.
Claims 12, 13 recites the limitation "the longitudinal aperture" in line 4 and line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. applicant has amended the independent claim 1 and replaced a longitudinal aperture with a slit. But did not replace the term the longitudinal base in the depending claims. Examiner suggest to replace the limitation ‘’the longitudinal aperture’ with the slit wherever appropriate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 14-20 are allowable.
Referring to claim 1, the closest prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an ion source comprising: a vaporizer configured to produce a vapor from a solid raw material; and a plenum comprising a plenum chamber having a first wall through which the vaporizer is in fluid communication with an interior of the plenum chamber, and a second wall opposite the first wall, the second wall comprising a plenum plate with a slit therein. Hence, claim 1 and depending claims 2-10, 20 are allowed.
Referring to claim 1, the closest prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an ion source comprising: a vaporizer comprising a nozzle; a plenum comprising: a plenum chamber having a first wall through which the nozzle of the vaporizer extends, and a second wall opposite the first wall, the second wall comprising a plenum plate with a longitudinal aperture therein, and a plurality of gas feed chambers coupled to a plurality of gas feed lines; and an ionization chamber which is in fluid communication with both to the plenum chamber through the longitudinal aperture and to the plurality of gas feed chambers, the ionization chamber being secured to the plenum at a proximal end of the ionization chamber. Hence, claim 14 and depending claims 15-19 are allowed.
Conclusion
Claims 1-10 and 14-20 are allowed.
Claims 11-13 are rejected.
Prior Art: Relevant prior art has been recorded at PTO 892 form
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU whose telephone number is (571)272-4250. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-3:30PM, 5PM -8:30PM.
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, ALEXANDER H TANINGCO can be reached at 5712728048. 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.
SRINIVAS . SATHIRAJU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2844
05/16/2026
Prosecution Insights