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 .
Specification
The use of the term Kovar®, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 18 recite the limitation “wherein a porosity of the plurality of reflective plates is in a range of about 0.01% to about 1%.” The specification discloses that “the porosity of the coating layer 211 is relatively low. For example, the porosity of the coating layer 211 may be in a range of about 0.01% to about 1%” (paragraph 0033). The porosity of the coating layer is further disclosed at paragraphs 0036, 0049, and 0051. However, no disclosure is made of a porosity of the reflective plates themselves; the only disclosure of porosity is the porosity of the coating layer(s).
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 8-10 and 17-20 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.
The term “about” in claims 8-10 and 17-19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “about 0.2 μm to about 50 μm” to mean “.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the ion beams from the ion source” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the ion beams from the ion source” to mean “an ion source.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0219887 A1), hereinafter Hwang (‘887).
Regarding claim 1, Hwang (‘887) discloses a reflector (FIG. 1, element 200) for generating neutral beams (FIG. 1, neutral beams N), the reflector comprising:
a plurality of reflective plates (FIG. 1, reflective plates 250), wherein ion beams (FIG. 1, ion beams I) from an ion source (FIG. 1, ion source 100) collide against each of the plurality of reflective plates, the plurality of reflective plates reflecting the ion beams and converting the ion beams into neutral beams (paragraph 0028, lines 18-20); and
a coupling portion disposed between the plurality of reflective plates (FIG. 1, coupling portion 230),
wherein each of the plurality of reflective plates comprises a first surface (FIG. 1, long surface of plates 250 opposite the surface impacted by ion beams I, i.e., the leftmost long surface), a second surface disposed on a first end of the first surface (FIG. 1, short surface at the end of plates 250 closest to the ion source), and a third surface disposed on a second end of the first surface that is opposite to the first end (FIG. 1, short surface at the end of plates 250 closest to substrate 300).
Regarding claim 3, Hwang (‘887) as applied to claim 1 discloses the reflector of claim 1.
In addition, Hwang (‘887) discloses that a coating layer is disposed on each of the plurality of reflective plates (FIG. 4, coating layer 270), the coating layer including at least one compound selected from molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), titanium (Ti), nickel (Ni), silicon (Si) and silicon carbide (SiC) (paragraph 0035, lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 4, Hwang (‘887) as applied to claim 1 discloses the reflector of claim 1.
In addition, Hwang (‘887) discloses that a coating layer is disposed on each of the plurality of reflective plates (paragraph 0039, lines 8-9, coating layer 270); and the coupling portion includes a metal (paragraph 0032, lines 18-20, silver, melting point ≤695 °C to 1235 °C according to CAS) having a melting point lower than a melting point of the coating layer (paragraph 0035, lines 15-16, stainless steel, melting point 1371 °C to 1527 °C according to CAS).
Regarding claim 5, Hwang (‘887) as applied to claim 1 discloses the reflector of claim 1.
In addition, Hwang (‘887) discloses that the coupling portion includes an active metal binder (this limitation is understood to be met by titanium and/or silver, as disclosed in the instant specification at paragraph 0031; Hwang (‘887) discloses silver at paragraph 0032, lines 18-20).
Regarding claim 6, Hwang (‘887) as applied to claim 1 discloses the reflector of claim 1.
In addition, Hwang (‘887) discloses that the coupling portion includes at least one compound selected from titanium (Ti) and silver (Ag) (paragraph 0032, lines 18-20, silver).
Regarding claim 11, Hwang (‘887) as applied to claim 1 discloses the reflector of claim 1.
In addition, Hwang (‘887) discloses that the plurality of reflective plates has a substantially same thermal expansion coefficient as a thermal expansion coefficient of the coupling portion (paragraph 0032, last sentence).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (‘887).
Regarding claim 2, Hwang (‘887) as applied to claim 1 discloses the reflector of claim 1.
In addition, Hwang (‘887) discloses that a coating layer is disposed on each of the plurality of reflective plates (paragraph 0039, lines 8-9, coating layer 270).
Hwang (‘887) fails to disclose a plurality of coating layers.
However, the applicant has not provided evidence that the plurality of coating layers produces a new and unexpected result as compared to a single coating layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hwang (‘887) to include a plurality of coating layers, because this modification amounts to nothing more than a duplication of parts. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 10, Hwang (‘887) as applied to claim 1 discloses the reflector of claim 1.
Hwang (‘887) fails to disclose that a surface roughness of the plurality of reflective plates is in a range of about 0.001 μm to about 0.1 μm.
However, optimizing a surface roughness 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, Hwang (‘887) teaches that “[a]n incident surface on which an ion beam collides may have a low surface roughness to obtain a uniform angle distribution of a neutral beam reflected from a reflecting plate” (Hwang (‘887), paragraph 0031). As such, Hwang (‘887) identifies surface roughness as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., a lower surface roughness results in a more uniform angle distribution of reflected beams. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting a surface roughness and identifies said surface roughness as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the surface roughness of the plurality of reflective plates to meet the claimed surface roughness since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (‘887) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0287509 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 7, Hwang (‘887) as applied to claim 1 discloses the reflector of claim 1.
Hwang (‘887) fails to disclose that the coupling portion includes at least one material selected from silver copper titanium (AgCuTi, TiCuSil), a copper active brazing alloy (Cu ABA) and silver copper tin titanium (AgCuSnTi).
However, the disclosure of Lee demonstrates that the function of silver copper titanium (AgCuTi) is known in the art of substrate processing. Lee also shows that substituting silver copper titanium (AgCuTi) for another coupling (“bonding”) component yields the predictable result of increasing heat dissipation efficiency between bonded layers (Lee, paragraph 0051). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hwang (‘887) to include that the coupling portion includes silver copper titanium (AgCuTi) because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (‘887) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Maricle et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,844,636 A), hereinafter Maricle.
Regarding claim 8, Hwang (‘887) as applied to claim 1 discloses the reflector of claim 1.
In addition, Hwang (‘887) discloses that a coating layer is disposed on each of the plurality of reflective plates (paragraph 0039, lines 8-9, coating layer 270).
Hwang (‘887) fails to disclose that a thickness of the coating layer is in a range of about 0.2 μm to about 50 μm.
However, Maricle discloses that a thickness of the coating layer is in a range of about 0.2 μm to about 50 μm (column 4, lines 31-37).
When a claimed range “overlap[s] or lie[s] inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I; In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the case at hand, Maricle teaches a range of 0.1-100 μm, preferably 0.1-10 μm, which overlaps with the claimed range of about 0.2 μm to about 50 μm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hwang (‘887) to meet the claimed range of the thickness of the coating layer.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (‘887) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hirsch (U.S. Patent No. 5,772,903 A), hereinafter Hirsch.
Regarding claim 9, Hwang (‘887) as applied to claim 1 discloses the reflector of claim 1.
Hwang (‘887) fails to disclose that a porosity of the plurality of reflective plates is in a range of about 0.01% to about 1%.
However, optimizing the porosity of the reflective plates 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, Hirsch teaches that “the ideal material choices for high critical angle reflecting surfaces are high density materials” (Hirsch, column 4, lines 21-23). As such, Hirsch identifies the porosity of the reflective plates as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., optimizing the reflecting surface performance for high critical angles. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the porosity of the reflective plates and identifies said porosity as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the porosity of the reflective plates to meet the claimed porosity since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claims 12-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (‘887) in view of Hwang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0196425 A1), hereinafter Hwang (‘425).
Regarding claim 12, Hwang (‘887) discloses a reflector (FIG. 1, element 200) for generating neutral beams (FIG. 1, neutral beams N), the reflector comprising:
a plurality of reflective plates (FIG. 1, reflective plates 250), wherein ion beams (FIG. 1, ion beams I) from an ion source (FIG. 1, ion source 100) collide against each of the plurality of reflective plates, the plurality of reflective plates reflecting the ion beams and converting the ion beams into neutral beams (paragraph 0028, lines 18-20); and
a coupling portion disposed between the plurality of reflective plates (FIG. 1, coupling portion 230), wherein each of the plurality of reflective plates comprises a first surface (FIG. 1, long surface of plates 250 opposite the surface impacted by ion beams I, i.e., the leftmost long surface), a second surface disposed on a first end of the first surface (FIG. 1, short surface at the end of plates 250 closest to the ion source), and a third surface disposed on a second end of the first surface that is opposite to the first end (FIG. 1, short surface at the end of plates 250 closest to substrate 300).
Hwang (‘887) fails to disclose that the coupling portion is disposed on the second and third surfaces of each of the plurality of reflective plates, the coupling portion has a ring structure as a whole.
However, Hwang (‘425) discloses that the coupling portion (FIG. 2, ring surrounding plates 141) is disposed on the second and third surfaces of each of the plurality of reflective plates (FIG. 2 shows the coupling ring disposed on the outer (upper and lower in the figure) edges, i.e., second and third surfaces, of the plates 141), the coupling portion has a ring structure as a whole (FIG. 2, ring surrounding plates 141).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hwang (‘887) to include that the coupling portion is disposed on the second and third surfaces of each of the plurality of reflective plates, the coupling portion has a ring structure as a whole, based on the teachings of Hwang (‘425) that this arrangement maintains the reflective plates at a regular interval of separation (Hwang (‘425), paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 13, Hwang (‘887) in view of Hwang (‘425) as applied to claim 12 discloses the reflector of claim 12.
In addition, Hwang (‘887) discloses that a coating layer is disposed on each of the plurality of reflective plates (FIG. 4, coating layer 270).
Hwang (‘887) fails to disclose a plurality of coating layers.
However, the applicant has not provided evidence that the plurality of coating layers produces a new and unexpected result as compared to a single coating layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hwang (‘887) to include a plurality of coating layers, because this modification amounts to nothing more than a duplication of parts. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 14, Hwang (‘887) in view of Hwang (‘425) as applied to claim 12 discloses the reflector of claim 12.
In addition, Hwang (‘887) discloses that a coating layer is disposed on each of the plurality of reflective plates (paragraph 0039, lines 8-9, coating layer 270), the coupling portion includes a metal (paragraph 0032, lines 18-20, silver, melting point ≤695 °C to 1235 °C according to CAS) having a melting point lower than a melting point of the coating layer (paragraph 0035, lines 15-16, stainless steel, melting point 1371 °C to 1527 °C according to CAS).
Regarding claim 15, Hwang (‘887) in view of Hwang (‘425) as applied to claim 12 discloses the reflector of claim 12.
In addition, Hwang (‘887) discloses that the coupling portion includes at least one compound selected from titanium (Ti) and silver (Ag) (paragraph 0032, lines 18-20, silver).
Regarding claim 19, Hwang (‘887) in view of Hwang (‘425) as applied to claim 12 discloses the reflector of claim 12.
Optimizing a surface roughness 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, Hwang (‘887) teaches that “[a]n incident surface on which an ion beam collides may have a low surface roughness to obtain a uniform angle distribution of a neutral beam reflected from a reflecting plate” (Hwang (‘887), paragraph 0031). As such, Hwang (‘887) identifies surface roughness as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., a lower surface roughness results in a more uniform angle distribution of reflected beams. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting a surface roughness and identifies said surface roughness as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the surface roughness of the plurality of reflective plates to meet the claimed surface roughness since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 20, Hwang (‘887) discloses a reflector (FIG. 1, element 200) for generating neutral beams (FIG. 1, neutral beams N), the reflector comprising:
a plurality of reflective plates (FIG. 1, reflective plates 250), wherein the ion beams (FIG. 1, ion beams I) from the ion source (FIG. 1, ion source 100) collide against each of the plurality of reflective plates (paragraph 0028, lines 18-20); and
a coupling portion disposed between the plurality of reflective plates (FIG. 1, coupling portion 230), and
wherein each of the plurality of reflective plates comprises a first surface (FIG. 1, long surface of plates 250 opposite the surface impacted by ion beams I, i.e., the leftmost long surface), a second surface disposed on a first end of the first surface (FIG. 1, short surface at the end of plates 250 closest to the ion source), and a third surface disposed on a second end of the first surface that is opposite to the first end (FIG. 1, short surface at the end of plates 250 closest to substrate 300), and a coating layer is disposed on the first surface of each of the plurality of reflective plates (FIG. 4, coating layer 270).
Hwang (‘887) fails to disclose that the coupling portion is disposed on the second and third surfaces of each of the plurality of reflective plates, the coupling portion has a ring structure as a whole.
However, Hwang (‘425) discloses that the coupling portion (FIG. 2, ring surrounding plates 141) is disposed on the second and third surfaces of each of the plurality of reflective plates (FIG. 2 shows the coupling ring disposed on the outer (upper and lower in the figure) edges, i.e., second and third surfaces, of the plates 141), the coupling portion has a ring structure as a whole (FIG. 2, ring surrounding plates 141).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hwang (‘887) to include that the coupling portion is disposed on the second and third surfaces of each of the plurality of reflective plates, the coupling portion has a ring structure as a whole, based on the teachings of Hwang (‘425) that this arrangement maintains the reflective plates at a regular interval of separation (Hwang (‘425), paragraph 0037).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (‘887) in view of Hwang (‘425) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 16, Hwang (‘887) in view of Hwang (‘425) as applied to claim 12 discloses the reflector of claim 12.
Hwang (‘887) in view of Hwang (‘425) fails to disclose that the coupling portion includes at least one material selected from silver copper titanium (AgCuTi, TiCuSil), a copper active brazing alloy (Cu ABA) and a silver copper tin titanium (AgCuSnTi).
However, the disclosure of Lee demonstrates that the function of silver copper titanium (AgCuTi) is known in the art of substrate processing. Lee also shows that substituting silver copper titanium (AgCuTi) for another coupling (“bonding”) component yields the predictable result of increasing heat dissipation efficiency between bonded layers (Lee, paragraph 0051). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hwang (‘887) in view of Hwang (‘425) to include that the coupling portion includes silver copper titanium (AgCuTi) because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (‘887) in view of Hwang (‘425) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Maricle.
Regarding claim 17, Hwang (‘887) in view of Hwang (‘425) as applied to claim 12 discloses the reflector of claim 12.
In addition, Hwang (‘887) discloses that a coating layer is disposed on each of the plurality of reflective plates (paragraph 0039, lines 8-9, coating layer 270).
Hwang (‘887) in view of Hwang (‘425) fails to disclose that a thickness of the coating layer is in a range of about 0.2 μm to about 50 μm.
However, Maricle discloses that a thickness of the coating layer is in a range of about 0.2 μm to about 50 μm (column 4, lines 31-37).
When a claimed range “overlap[s] or lie[s] inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I; In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the case at hand, Maricle teaches a range of 0.1-100 μm, preferably 0.1-10 μm, which overlaps with the claimed range of about 0.2 μm to about 50 μm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hwang (‘887) in view of Hwang (‘425) to meet the claimed range of the thickness of the coating layer.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (‘887) in view of Hwang (‘425) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hirsch.
Regarding claim 18, Hwang (‘887) in view of Hwang (‘425) as applied to claim 12 discloses the reflector of claim 12.
Hwang (‘887) in view of Hwang (‘425) fails to disclose that a porosity of the plurality of reflective plates is in a range of about 0.01% to about 1%.
However, optimizing the porosity of the reflective plates 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, Hirsch teaches that “the ideal material choices for high critical angle reflecting surfaces are high density materials” (Hirsch, column 4, lines 21-23). As such, Hirsch identifies the porosity of the reflective plates as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., optimizing the reflecting surface performance for high critical angles. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the porosity of the reflective plates and identifies said porosity as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the porosity of the reflective plates to meet the claimed porosity since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Benveniste (U.S. Patent No. 5,164,599 A), hereinafter Benveniste, teaches an apparatus for generating neutral beams, the apparatus comprising a plurality of reflectors.
Hwang et al. (KR Patent No. 20080064233 A), hereinafter Hwang (2008) (English machine translation provided), teaches a reflector for generating neutral beams, the reflector comprising: a plurality of reflective plates, wherein ion beams from an ion source collide against each of the plurality of reflective plates, the plurality of reflective plates reflecting the ion beams and converting the ion beams into neutral beams.
Piestrup et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,955,365 B1), hereinafter Piestrup, teaches a plurality of reflective plates having a low porosity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights