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 .
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 2-4 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 2 recites a series of conditional limitations. However, it is unclear whether the claim indicates that all of the conditional limitations for both the first temperature and the second temperature must be met, or if only one from each conditional limitation is necessary. Further, it is unclear if or how the two sets of conditional limitations interact with each other, where the first condition precedent, i.e., operational temperature, falls outside of the prescribed range. Finally, it is unclear whether the “in a state that” claim language regarding the temperatures is a describing a moment in time, a controller setting, a plan, or something else entirely. These limitations obscure the scope of the claim, and make the claim indefinite by failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites a series of conditional limitations regarding electric fields, wherein the condition precedent is the strength of the operation field. The operation field, as described in the specification, is produced by the voltage between the suppressor electrode and the extraction electrode. See instant pgpub at para 36. However, no such explanation is provided as to how the field arises or what defines it with respect to claim 3. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine whether a given electric field infringed upon the claimed electric field. Further, it is unclear whether the “in a state that” claim language regarding the electric fields is describing a moment in time, a controller setting, a plan, or something else entirely. These limitations obscure the scope of the claim, and make the claim indefinite by failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites a conditional limitation, “upon the heating source supplying a filament current” with two actions, setting a filament current at a first temperature and setting the same filament current at a second temperature. The first and second temperatures describe the temperature of the same Schottky emitter. As such, the two actions cannot take place “upon the heating source supplying a filament current” because the Schottky emitter will only be at one temperature. Accordingly, it appears that the claim requires two mutually exclusive things to occur “upon” the same condition precedent. This makes the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 recites a conditional limitation, “upon the power supply applying an effective voltage” with two actions, setting the effective voltages of two electric fields. The first and second electric fields describe the fields applied to the same Schottky emitter at different times. As such, the two actions cannot take place “upon the power supply applying an effective voltage” because the Schottky emitter can only be exposed to one of the fields. Accordingly, it appears that the claim requires two mutually exclusive things to occur “upon” the same condition precedent. This makes the claim indefinite.
The above indefinite claims will be examined as best understood in light of the specification.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,616,926 [Shinada].
Regarding Claim 1:
Shinada discloses an electron beam device including a Schottky emitter (abstract) comprising:
a heating source configured to heat the Schottky emitter (2:62-64);
a power supply configured to apply an electric field to the Schottky emitter (Fig. 16 (8)); and
a control unit configured to control the heating source and the power supply (Fig. 16 (11)), wherein
the control unit is configured to
execute a first stage of applying a first electric field to the Schottky emitter while heating the Schottky emitter at a first temperature (Fig. 14: 8-14 min), and
a second stage of applying a second electric field to the Schottky emitter while heating the Schottky emitter at a second temperature (Fig. 14: 14-40 min),
the first temperature is higher than an operation temperature of the Schottky emitter and the second temperature (2150 K > 1800 K),
the first electric field is equal to or higher than an operation electric field of the Schottky emitter (1.5 kV ≥ 1.4 kV) and lower than the second electric field (1.5 kV < 5 kV),
the second temperature is equal to or higher than the operation temperature (1800 K = 1800 K) and lower than the first temperature (1800 K < 2150 K), and
the second electric field is higher than the operation electric field and the first electric field (5 kV > 1.5 kV >1.4kV). See annotated Shinada Fig. 14a below, as described at 11:35-60.
Regarding Claim 2:
Shinada discloses the electron beam device according to claim 1, wherein,
the Schottky emitter is a Zr/O/W emitter (1:48, 5:61) including a tip of a tungsten single crystal (5:61) and a reservoir of zirconium oxide (1:33-37).
The operational temperature is 1800 K. Figs. 12, 114. As such, Shinada anticipates the various intended use limitations of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 6:
Shinada discloses the electron beam device according to claim 1, wherein
the control unit is configured to fix the first temperature, the first electric field, the second temperature, and the second electric field to predetermined values. As shown in Figs. 14 and 15.
Regarding Claim 7:
Shinada discloses the electron beam device according to claim 1, wherein
the control unit is configured to change the first temperature, the first electric field, the second temperature, and the second electric field in a stepwise manner. As shown in Figs. 14 and 15. Whether a change is stepwise or continuous is arbitrary determination of an observer. One of ordinary skill in the art could easily call the adjustments of Figs. 14 and 15 either.
Regarding Claim 8:
Shinada discloses the electron beam device according to claim 1, wherein
the control unit is configured to continuously change the first temperature, the first electric field, the second temperature, and the second electric field. As shown in Figs. 14 and 15. Whether a change is stepwise or continuous is arbitrary determination of an observer. One of ordinary skill in the art could easily call the adjustments of Figs. 14 and 15 either.
Regarding Claim 9:
Shinada discloses a method of operating a Schottky emitter (abstract), the method comprising:
executing a first stage of applying a first electric field to the Schottky emitter while heating the Schottky emitter at a first temperature (Fig. 14: 8-14 min), and
a second stage of applying a second electric field to the Schottky emitter while heating the Schottky emitter at a second temperature (Fig. 14: 14-40 min),
wherein
the first temperature is higher than an operation temperature of the Schottky emitter and the second temperature (2150 K > 1800 K),
the first electric field is equal to or higher than an operation electric field of the Schottky emitter (1.5 kV ≥ 1.4 kV) and lower than the second electric field (1.5 kV < 5 kV),
the second temperature is equal to or higher than the operation temperature (1800 K = 1800 K) and lower than the first temperature (1800 K < 2150 K), and
the second electric field is higher than the operation electric field and the first electric field (5 kV > 1.5 kV >1.4kV).
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 (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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinada.
Regarding Claim 3:
Shinada teaches the electron beam device according to claim 1, wherein,
the Schottky emitter is a Zr/O/W emitter (1:48, 5:61) including a tip of a tungsten single crystal (5:61) and a reservoir of zirconium oxide (1:33-37),
but fails to teach:
the first electric field is 0.5 GV/m or higher and lower than 1.5 GV/m, and
the second electric field is 1.0 GV/m or higher and lower than 2.0 GV/m in a state that the operation electric field is 0.5 GV/m or higher and lower than 1.0 GV/m, and the second electric field is 1.5 GV/m or higher and lower than 2.0 GV/m in a state that the operation electric field is 1.0 GV/m or higher and lower than 1.5 GV/m.
Shinada 8:44-47 states that the suppressor electrode is 0.5 mm from the extraction electrode and supplied with a negative voltage of 300-800 V. 9:20-26 states that the extraction electrode may be set from 2.6- 6 kV. Finaly, 9:38-30 describes the field strength at the tip as being between 0.068-0.081 V/Å. This is equivalent to 0.68 – 0.81 GV/m while operating at 1.4 kV extraction voltage. This in turn indicates that both the first and operation electric fields are within the claimed range, and the second field, which is created by an extraction field that is approximately 3.5 times as high.
Optimizing the electric fields near the emitter is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Shinada teaches that adjusting voltages to the suppressor and the extraction electrode, and modifying the electric field near the emitter. See above. As such, Shinada identifies the electric field as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., forming the emitter and emitting electrons. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the first, second, and operation electric fields in Shinada to meet the claimed ranges since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amendments to claims 2-5 have not repaired the issues of indefiniteness therein.
Applicant argues that Shinada fails to anticipate claim 1 because its first voltage is zero, not 1.5 kV. This is not persuasive. See annotated Shinada Fig. 14a below, as described at 11:35-60.
PNG
media_image1.png
268
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 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, 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights