DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This application is examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which an inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1
The phrase “balls positioned between lens gaps” is unclear. It appears that balls would be positioned in gaps (i.e., empty space), not positioned between gaps. Perhaps “high energy ion beam” should be changed to “ion beam”. Thus, it is unclear whether the claim should be interpreted as “An ion beam generator system comprising an extraction lens stack having a plurality of lenses, a gap between adjacent lenses, and a plurality of insulating balls positioned in each gap”.
Claim 15
The phrase “balls are positioned between conical indentations” is unclear. It appears that balls would be positioned in indentations, not between indentations. The claim allows for the balls to be (axially and/or horizontally) spaced from the indentations. Thus, the structural relationship (if any) between the balls and indentations is unclear.
Review
These claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Since claims can be interpreted differently, they are prima facie indefinite. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Comment
In the claims it is suggested that “high energy ion beam” be changed to “ion beam”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 6-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faircloth ("Ion sources for high-power hadron accelerators", arXiv preprint arXiv:1302.3745 (2013)) in combination with Stein ("Feedback-controlled ion beam sculpting apparatus", Review of Scientific Instruments 75, no. 4 (2004): 900-905).
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 11, 13, and 15-20
Faircloth discloses an ion beam generator system comprising a plasma lens, an extraction lens, an exit lens, and a suppression lens. For example, note sections 3.2, 3.10, and 3.11.
Stein shows that it is well known in the art to use (three) insulating balls to space adjacent lenses. For example, note page 902, second column, first paragraph. The balls allow for electrical isolation and precise distance alignment. Modification of Faircloth to have included insulating balls between the lenses for the benefits thereof, as suggested by Stein, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claims 3, 12, 14, and 20
Equal spacing of balls to prevent unequal distribution of support is within the skill of the artisan. Thus, further modification of Faircloth to have evenly spaced the balls in an azimuthal coordinate would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faircloth in combination with Stein as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Bach (US 3,949,230).
Bach shows that it is well known in the art to use metal bolts (19) to hold together lenses (e.g., col. 3, line 44; col. 4, lines 3-4; and claim 2). Metal bolts provide strength. Further modification of Faircloth to have conventionally used metal bolts to accurately hold together the lenses, as suggested by Bach, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faircloth in combination with Stein as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Brown (“Crystalline chromium doped aluminum oxide (ruby) use as a luminescent screen for proton beams”, No. BNL—66027, Brookhaven National Lab, Upton, NY (United States), 1999).
Brown provides evidence that Steins’ ruby balls comprise alumina. Thus, modification of Faircloth to have included alumina insulating balls between the lenses would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims or the feature(s) must be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The following recited features are not shown:
extraction lens stack held together with metal bolts (claims 4 and 10).
combination of: (1) insulating balls positioned between extraction lens and suppression lens; and (2) insulating balls positioned between exit lens and the suppression lens (e.g., claims 6, 13, and 15-16).
conical indentations in each extraction lens, suppression lens, and exit lens (claim 15).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not directed to that which is new in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Rather, the abstract appears to describe conventional prior art.
The Abstract is further objected to because it improperly refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention (e.g., “low cost”, “high performance”, “robust”, “consistent”, “low gas consumption”).
It is suggested that the term “high” not be used (e.g., “high energy”, “high current/high-moderate voltage”).
An Abstract should include that which is new in the art to which the recited invention pertains. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it is directed to conventional prior art.
Citation of Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered related to Applicant's disclosure.
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the prior art must be considered in its entirety by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 (VI).
Application Status Information
Applicants seeking status information regarding an application should check Patent Center on the Office website at www.uspto.gov/PatentCenter. Alternatively, the requester may contact the Application Assistance Unit (AAU). See MPEP § 1730, subsection VI.C. See MPEP § 102 for additional information on status information. For a USPTO Customer Service Representative call 800-786-9199 or 571-272-1000.
Interview Information
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.
Contact Information
Examiner Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights