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 .
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/4/2025 and 10/1/2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasaki (US 20220285127 A1).
With regards to claim 1. Sasaki disclose(s):
A linear accelerator apparatus (figs 1-10), comprising:
a beamline enclosure that defines a polygonal backbone (see 140a; fig 6); a plurality of acceleration stages (74a-74c), disposed along a length of the beamline enclosure (140a enclosing BL), wherein a given acceleration stage comprises:
a drift tube assembly (72a) to conduct an ion beam (BL) therethrough; a resonator (74a; figs 5-6), coupled to deliver an RF signal to the drift tube assembly (72a); and a quadrupole assembly (121-125; fig 5; [0067]) to shape the ion beam (BL), wherein at a first acceleration stage, a first resonator (74a) is disposed along a first side of the polygonal backbone (see 140a; fig 6), and at a second acceleration stage, adjacent to and downstream (the examiner takes the position that downstream involves either to the left or right as shown in fig 6) of the first acceleration stage, a second resonator (74b; fig 6) is disposed along a second side of the polygonal backbone (140b), different from the first side (140a).
With regards to claim 3. Sasaki disclose(s):
The linear accelerator apparatus of claim 1, wherein the polygonal backbone comprises a pair of vertical sides, wherein the given acceleration stage further comprises: a quadrupole assembly (121-125; fig 5; [0067]), disposed along a first vertical side of the polygonal backbone; and a pump assembly (148 [0073]), disposed along a second vertical side of the polygonal backbone (see 121-125 in a top side and 148 in bottom side in fig 5; see fig 6 for reference of multiple vertical sides).
With regards to claim 8. Sasaki disclose(s):
An ion implanter (figs 1-10), comprising:
an ion source to generate a continuous ion beam at a first energy [0028]; and a linear accelerator [0029], to receive the continuous ion beam, generate a bunched ion beam from the continuous ion beam ([0027]), and accelerate the bunched ion beam to a second energy, the linear accelerator comprising:
a beamline enclosure that defines a polygonal backbone (see 140a; fig 6); a plurality of acceleration stages (74a-74c), disposed along a length of the beamline enclosure (140a enclosing BL), wherein a given acceleration stage comprises:
a drift tube assembly (72a) to conduct an ion beam (BL) therethrough; a resonator (74a; figs 5-6), coupled to deliver an RF signal to the drift tube assembly (72a); and a quadrupole lens (121-125; fig 5; [0067]) to shape the ion beam (BL), wherein at a first acceleration stage, a first resonator (74a) is disposed along a first side of the polygonal backbone (see 140a; fig 6), and at a second acceleration stage, adjacent to and downstream (the examiner takes the position that downstream involves either to the left or right as shown in fig 6) of the first acceleration stage, a second resonator (74b; fig 6) is disposed along a second side of the polygonal backbone (140b), different from the first side (140a).
With regards to claim 10. Sasaki disclose(s):
The ion implanter of claim 8, wherein the polygonal backbone comprises a pair of vertical sides, wherein the given acceleration stage further comprises: a quadrupole assembly (121-125; fig 5; [0067]), disposed along a first vertical side of the polygonal backbone; and a pump assembly (148 [0073]), disposed along a second vertical side of the polygonal backbone (see 121-125 in a top side and 148 in bottom side in fig 5; see fig 6 for reference of multiple vertical sides).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 of this title, 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) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20220285127 A1) in view of Lombardi (US 20170238408 A1).
With regards to claim 15. Sasaki disclose(s):
A linear accelerator (figs 1-10), comprising:
a frame (see ); a beamline enclosure that defines a
Sasaki does not disclose(s):
the
Lombardi teaches
the
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device/method/system of Sasaki by implementing the backbone being a hexagonal backbone as disclosed by Lombardi in order to minimise the power consumption, while still being thick enough to ensure adequate cooling efficiency as taught/suggested by Lombardi ([0050]).
With regards to claim 17. Sasaki as modified disclose(s):
The linear accelerator of claim 15,
Sasaki further disclose(s):
wherein the linear accelerator comprises a plurality of acceleration stages, wherein the hexagonal backbone comprises a pair of vertical sides, wherein a given acceleration stage of the plurality of acceleration stages further comprises: a quadrupole assembly (121-125; fig 5; [0067]), disposed along a first vertical side of the hexagonal backbone (148 [0073]); and a pump assembly (148 [0073]), disposed along a second vertical side of the hexagonal backbone (see 121-125 in a top side and 148 in bottom side in fig 5; see fig 6 for reference of multiple vertical sides).
Lombardi further disclose(s):
the
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, 16, 18-20 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENAN LUQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1044. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jessica Han can be reached on 571-272-2078. 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.
/RENAN LUQUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896