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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The objections to drawings, specification, and claim 9 on record are withdrawn in light applicant’s amendment.
The 35 U.S.C.112(a) and 112(b) rejections on record are withdrawn in light applicant’s amendment.
The 35 U.S.C.102 rejections on record are withdrawn in light applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 in view of Nakano have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0300652 A1 [hereinafter Daibo] in view of US 20210249218A1 [hereinafter Nakano].
Regarding Claim 1:
Daibo teaches a vector potential generation device (Abstract) comprising:
a loop of solid material (Fig. 13- base body 11) that encloses a bore (Fig. 13- internal space X2) (Fig. 13 shows “a donut-shaped based body with a central void”);
one or more wires (Fig. 13- vector-potential coil 4) poloidally wrapped around the loop of solid material (para. [0157]: “a vector potential coil 4 formed by a solenoid coil 3 by a wound conductor 2, wound circularly around a base body 11”);
wherein a current flowing through at least one wire of the one or more wires (Fig. 13 and paras. [0157, 0159]: power supply 5 is electrically connected to coil 4 that “passing a current through the vector potential coil 4”) causes:
generating a magnetic field confined inside the loop of solid material along a toroidal direction of the loop of solid material (para. [0032]: “when a current is passed through the vector potential coil, a state is created in which magnetic flux is circularly placed. Outside the solenoid coil… there is no magnetic field”) and
generating magnetic vector potential within the bore (para. [0032]: “By further circularly winding the solenoid coil, a parallel vector potential is generated in the internal space formed by the winding structure”).
Daibo teaches electron beam interaction with vector potentials. However, Daibo does not expressly teach a charged particle optical apparatus comprising one or more charged particles crossing through the bore of the loop of solid material; wherein a phase shift acquired by the one or more charged particles crossing through the bore varies with radial position and defines a radial phase-shift profile having non-zero curvature; and wherein the one or more charged particles that exit the bore are refracted toward at least one of a real focal point and a virtual focal point of the charged particle optical apparatus.
Nakano teaches a charged particle optical apparatus (Fig. 14- “electron beam device”) comprising:
a loop of solid material that encloses a bore (see annotated Figs. 1A-1B above and para. [0031]: the multipole 803/806 in Fig. 14 is illustrated in Figs. 1A-1C, which includes a “magnetic core 150 is made of a magnetic material such as pure iron or permalloy, has a cylindrical shape,” and encloses a center bore);
one or more charged particles crossing through the bore of the loop (Fig. 14 and para. [0048]: “a primary electron beam is emitted from an electron gun 801…and passes through a multipole lens 803”).
As such, Daibo in view of Nakano teaches:
wherein a phase shift acquired by the one or more charged particles crossing through the bore varies with radial position and defines a radial phase-shift profile having non-zero curvature (Daibo expressly teaches that vector potential changes the phase of an electron wave function ([0004]) and identifies this as the Aharonov-Bohm effect ([0084]). As such, once Nakano’s electron beam is passed through Daibo’s bore containing the vector potential generated by the same finite toroidal winding structure, the phase acquired by the electrons is necessarily determined by the spatial vector-potential distribution. Thus, the recited radial phase-shift profile describes an inherent physical property of the modified apparatus rather than an additional structural element); and
wherein the one or more charged particles that exit the bore are refracted toward at least one of a real focal point and a virtual focal point of the charged particle optical apparatus (once the radial phase profile has non-zero curvature, charged particles at different radial positions acquire different phase gradients, causing the existing charged-particle wavefront to converge (define real focal point) or diverge (define virtual focal point). Thus, this element describes the resulting optical behavior of the modified apparatus rather than requiring another structure. Nakano also confirms that electron beams in charged-particle optics are conventionally directed/converged by the lens system ([0048])).
Nakano teaches a charged-particle optical apparatus in which a primary electron beam travels along an optical axis through a current-driven magnetic lens structure to manipulate an electron beam using the magnetic field generated in the beam region. Daibo teaches a donut-shaped toroidal core having a solenoid conductor would around the core, where current through the winding produces circular magnetic flux confined to the toroidal coil and generates a magnetic vector potential within the central bore, to change the phase of an electron wavefunction through the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to use Daibo’s toroidal vector-potential structure in Nakano’s charged-particle optical apparatus, with Nakano’s electron beam passing through Daibo’s bore, to manipulate the electron beam phase without requiring the beam to be subject to the lens magnetic field, thereby providing an alternative means of controlling charged particle propagation while reducing magnetic field interaction in the beam path.
Regarding Claim 2:
Daibo in view of Nakano teaches the charged particle optical apparatus of claim 1. The combined references further teach wherein the charged particles are refracted toward a virtual focal point, thereby providing concave focusing (para. [0158]: Daibo teaches that reversing the winding direction of the generated vector potential while preserving the same mechanism. Since the direction of the vector-potential-induced phase effect determines the sign of the focusing produced by the claimed toroidal structure, selecting the opposite vector potential direction would inherently provide the opposite focusing sense, i.e., divergence toward a virtual focal point/concave focusing).
Regarding Claim 3:
Daibo in view of Nakano teaches the charged particle optical apparatus of claim 1. The combined references further teach wherein the charged particles are refracted toward a real focal point, thereby providing convex focusing (since passing Nakano’s electron beam through Daibo’s vector potential bore produces the inherent curved phase interaction, selecting the vector potential/current direction that produces convergence results in a real focal point).
Regarding Claim 4:
Daibo in view of Nakano teaches the charged particle optical apparatus of claim 1. Nakano further teaches wherein the loop of solid material has a geometry of a toroid (para. [0031]: magnetic core 150 has a cylindrical shape with a center bore).
Regarding Claim 5:
Nakano teaches the charged particle optical apparatus of claim 1. Nakano further teaches wherein a cross-section of the loop of solid material has a geometry of a polygon (see annotated Fig. 1A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6:
Daibo in view of Nakano teaches the charged particle optical apparatus of claim 1. Nakano further teaches wherein the solid material comprises ferromagnetic materials (para. [0031]: “magnetic core 150 is made of a magnetic material such as pure iron or permalloy”).
Regarding Claim 9:
Daibo in view of Nakano teaches the charged particle optical apparatus of claim 1. The combined references further teach wherein the loop of solid material and a first loop of solid material, the bore is a first bore, the one or more wires is first one or more wires, the current is a first current, magnetic vector potential is first magnetic vector potential, the poloidal direction is the first poloidal direction, the charged particle optical apparatus having a first focal point that is a convex focal point (as discussed in claim 1).
The combined references further teach a second loop of solid material that encloses a second bore; second one or more wires poloidally wrapped around the second loop; the second one or more wires having a second current through at least one wire of the second one or more wires and thereby generating second magnetic vector potential within the second bore; the one or more charged particles crossing through the second bore of the second loop; wherein the one or more charged particles that exit the second bore are refracted toward a concave focal point of the charged particle optical apparatus, thereby condensing the one or more charged particles exiting the second bore (Nakano expressly teaches two winding-type multipole lenses 803 and 806 positioned sequentially along the electron beam path. The beam passes through multipole lens 803 and is then transferred to multipole lens 806 by condenser lenses 804 and 805, as shown in Fig. 14 of Nakano. Thus, it would have been obvious to use two instances of Daibo’s toroidal vector-potential structure in Nakano’s multi-stage charged particle optical arrangement, operating with opposite vector-potential directions so that one produces the convex focusing sense and the other produces the concave focusing sense as required by the claimed optical design).
Regarding Claim 10:
Daibo in view of Nakano teaches the charged particle optical apparatus of claim 1. The combined references further teach wherein the loop of solid material is a first loop of solid material, the bore is a first bore, the one or more wires is first one or more wires, the current is a first current, magnetic vector potential is first magnetic vector potential, the charged particle optical apparatus having a first focal point that is a convex focal point (as discussed in claim 1).
Nakano further teaches the apparatus further comprising of a magnetic field-based lens placed above the first loop (Fig. 14 of Nakano shows the electron beam device comprises multiple condenser lenses 804 and 805 placed above the multipole 806, each condense lens comprises a coil part and a magnetic body (“magnetic field-based lens”);
the one or more charged particles crossing the magnetic field-based lens being focused toward a second focal point having a spherical aberration; the one or more charged particles crossing the first bore and condensing on the first focal point that is a convex focal point thereby correcting the spherical aberration of the electrostatic lens (para. [0048]: “The primary electron beams passed through the multipole lens 803 are transferred to a multipole lens 806 by a condenser lens 804 and a condenser lens 805… Each of the multipole lens 803 and the multipole lens 806 is configured with a winding type multipole lens described according to the present embodiment, and a hexapole field is excited in order to perform a spherical aberration correction).
Regarding Claim 21:
Daibo in view of Nakano teaches the charged particle optical apparatus of claim 1. The Daibo further teaches wherein the phase shift comprises an Aharonov-Bohm phase shift (Daibo expressly states that Aharonov and Bohm predicts that vector potential “changes the phase of the wave function of the electron” and identifies that phenomenon as the Aharonov-Bohm effect).
Regarding Claim 22:
Daibo in view of Nakano teaches the charged particle optical apparatus of claim 1. Daibo further teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to switch between a convex focal point and a concave focal point for the one or more charged particles by reversing a direction of the current flowing through the at least one wire of the one or more wires (paras. [0157-01658]: Daibo teaches that its vector-potential coil may be driven by alternating current and that reversal of the current/winding orientation reverses the generated vector potential. Therefore, reverse the current through the coil would reverse the direction of the vector potential and thereby switch the inherent charged particle focusing effect between convex and concave focusing).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano in view of Daibo, further in view of US 20230369916 A1 [hereinafter Kim].
Regarding Claim 7:
Nakano in view of Daibo teaches the charged particle optical apparatus of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specially note that the apparatus further comprising of shielding material that shields the magnetic field within the loop of solid material from escaping outside. Kim teaches the apparatus further comprising of shielding material that shields the magnetic field within the loop of solid material from escaping outside (Fig. 12B and para. [0219]: “…most of the unnecessary magnetic field leaking to an outside of the wireless power transmission apparatus may be shielded by the shielding coil 1150 that surrounds the plurality of transmission coils 1100”).
Nakano in view of Daibo teaches a winding type aberration corrector that generates magnetic fields. Kim teaches placing shielding coil surrounding transmission coils to shield unnecessary magnetic field leaking to the outside of the apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Nakano/Daibo’s current-wires structure to include Kim’s shielding coil surrounding the current wires to shield the magnetic field within the loop from escaping while maintaining operating efficiency, as combining known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 8:
Nakano in view of Daibo and Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 7. Kim further teaches wherein the one or more wires are first one or more wires, and the shielding material comprises an electrically conducting material encapsulating the first one or more wires (see Fig. 12B and paras. [0218-0219, 0221] of Kim, in the modified structure, wrapping the shielding coil from Kim around the current coils taught in Nakano/Daibo would allow the shielding coil also poloidally winded around the loop, and Kim expressly teaches the shielding coil 1150 are “conductive wire”).
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 JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights