DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Communication filed on 04/24/2025. In virtue of the communication:
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The references cited in the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS(s)) filed on 09/17/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Figs. 1 and 3 should be indicated as PRIOR ART. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 11 and 18-20 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.
In claim 11, line 3, the term “its” is not clear. It is not understood what “its” is intended to be.
In claim 18, line 2, the term “its” is not clear. It is not understood what “its” is intended to be.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fig. 2 (prior art) of the instant application.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 2 of the instant application discloses a large linear charged particle beam source comprising:
a large linear TCP source mounted inside a vacuum chamber and having at least two unit TCP source modules (Fig. 2);
a beam body (plasma generating in Fig. 2) positioned at the front of the large linear TCP source and configured to confine plasma generated by the large linear TCP source; and
a grid module having multiple grid holes (module with the grid holes covered plasma, Fig. 2), positioned at an outlet of the beam body and configured to extract charged particles from the plasma inside the beam body (Fig. 2 of the instant application).
Fig. 2 does not teach the TCP sources connected continuously without any discontinuous space.
However, this limitation is not of the patentable merits since connecting the parts or modules together continuously would have been held obvious to one having skill in the art as of engineering design choice to have the part(s) that suitable to use in the system for providing better operation.
Accordingly, it would have been deemed obvious to one having skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the Fig 2 of the instant application with the continuously connection of the TCP modules in order to improve the performance of generation of plasma in the chamber.
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fig. 2 (prior art) of the instant application, in view of KIM (WO 20100446641 A9).
Regarding claim 8, Fig. 2 of the instant application discloses all of the limitations except a magnetic field reinforcement module which is positioned in a predetermined area inside or outside the plasma vacuum chamber.
However, as evidenced by KIM, providing the magnetic field reinforcement module (30, Fig. 5) which is positioned in a predetermined area outside the plasma vacuum chamber (20, Fig. 5) is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been deemed obvious to one having skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the Fig 2 of the instant application with the magnetic field reinforcement module as taught by KIM in order to improve the performance of generation of plasma in the chamber.
Regarding claim 12, Fig. 2 of the instant application discloses grid for a large linear charged particle beam source (Fig. 2), comprising multiple unit grid modules having multiple grid holes that serve as passage paths for charged particles (module with the grid holes covered plasma, Fig. 2).
Fig. 2 does not teach the multiple unit grid modules are connected using a connection structure based on the shape of the side connection surfaces between adjacent unit grid modules, which the connection structure is one of vertical connection structure, sloped connection structure, stepped connection structure, and a sloped-stepped hybrid connection structure.
However, as evidence by KIM, providing the grid 840 and grid 850 (Fig. 12) connected together with vertical connection structure (Fig. 12) is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been deemed obvious to one having skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the Fig 2 of the instant application with the connection of grids as taught by KIM in order to improve the performance of generation of plasma in the chamber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 9-11 and 13-17 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1832. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached on 571-272-8048. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2800.
/JIMMY T VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights