DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1 the phrase “[zc1, zc2]” should be corrected. Brackets do not appear to be permitted. This appears to be reference characters that should be in parenthesis (MPEP 608.01(m)). This correction should also be made in claim 8.
Change claim 2 line 2 accordingly: “wherein [[a]] the permanent magnet stack (2)”.
Change claim 5 line 3 accordingly: “the permanent magnet stack (2) over [[its]] a length of the permanent magnet stack (2)”.
Change claim 8 line 4 accordingly: “[[the]] an electron cyclotron resonance (EZR) effect” to be consistent with applicant page 4, top (also see 112 section below).
Change claim 10 lines 1-2 accordingly: “providing [[a]] the microwave cyclotron resonance plasma thruster”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: zc1,zc2 (also see claim objection section above). 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. 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.
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 1-10 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 1 recites the limitation "the axial direction" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This phrase is also recited at lines 19-20.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inner cross-sectional area" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "similar to a circle" at line 10 renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "similar to"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “high transparency” in claim 1 at line 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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. Page 5 bottom refers to transparency as the “the proportion of ions that do not collide with the mechanical structure of the grid or ring but pass through it.” However there is no standard stated regarding the proportion explaining when the claim is infringed. Claim 3 recites the instant phrase “high transparency” and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the coaxial conductor (3)" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the direction of flow" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “at least one permanent magnet” in line 4. Claim 1 then recites “the permanent magnets …” at line 19. It is unclear if the line 19 recitation is (1) positively reciting two more permanent magnets or (2) merely stating that if there is more than one permanent magnet then such magnets have the same axial direction.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the generated plasma" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer coaxial conductor potential" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inner coaxial conductor potential" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “the ionization zone can be formed near the inner coaxial conductor” in claim 1 at line 27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” 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 example one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how proximate to the inner conductor the ionization zone can be in order to infringe the claim.
The term “high-frequency electric field” in claim 1 at line 31 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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. Examiner could not find a standard regarding what frequencies are considered high-frequency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the resonance condition" in line 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the microwave" in line 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The metes and bounds of the claim 1 line 32-33 phrase “between the microwave and electron cyclotron frequency” does not appear to be clear as best understood by examiner. For example it could intending to communicate “between the microwave generator and an electron cyclotron frequency”, or “between a microwave frequency and an electron cyclotron frequency”, or “between a microwave generator frequency and an electron cyclotron frequency”, and so forth. The claim language should be more clear in order to be consistent with 25 USC 112.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the path" in line 34. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “the path under the influence of the magnetic field is constructively short for ions formed in the ionization zone” in claim 1 at line 34-35 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “constructively short” or “short” 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. Page 8 middle refers to a “short distance”. However there is no standard stated regarding the distance explaining when the claim is infringed.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the direction of the magnets" in line 36-37. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the end" in line 37. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the magnetic field influence" in line 37. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “slightly influenced” in claim 1 at line 39 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slightly” 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. Page 10 bottom discusses this. However there is no standard stated regarding the amount of influence explaining when the claim is infringed.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the microwaves" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the magnetic field strength" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the generated plasma" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the thruster generator" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the thruster generator" in line 3. It is unclear in light of applicant specification what is the thruster generator. Page 5, ll. 1-5 states “a microwave generator is electrically isolated from the generated plasma”. However page 10, ll. 5-7 states “the generator [of the MCP engine] is not shown in the figure”. The claim is interpreted regarding the former.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the conditions" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the EZR effect" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See claim objection also above.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the magnetic flux density" in lines 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the inner space" in lines 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the other end face" in lines 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the direction" in lines 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the magnetic field exposure" in lines 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the area" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the generation area" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub. No.: US 2012/0217876 A1 (Diamant), or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Diament in view of NPL “Electric propulsion for satellites and spacecraft: established technologies and novel approaches” (Mazouffre).
Regarding claim 1, Diamant discloses (see fig. 1) a microwave cyclotron resonance plasma thruster (1) 100 comprising a permanent magnet stack (2) 125, a coaxial electrode arrangement 112,113, an anode (4) 145 and a cathode (5) 150, wherein
- the permanent magnet stack (2) 125 comprises at least one permanent (see par. 15, top) magnet 125, the at least one permanent magnet being ring-shaped (one of ordinary skill would understand the magnet 125 to be ring-shaped in light of cylindrical, see par. 13 top, chassis 105a; also see par. 15: “the first cylindrical chassis 105a may include a magnet 125 around its exterior”) and having a magnetization in the axial direction (see par. 15: “the magnet 125 may provide a magnetic field having substantial axial … component”);
- the coaxial electrode arrangement having an inner coaxial conductor (3.1) 113 (antenna 113 conducts microwave radiation, see par. 14) and an outer coaxial (see par. 14: “The transmission line 112 may include a … coaxial trans-mission line”) conductor (3.2) 112;
- the thruster (1) 100 is semiconductor-based (see par. 14: “The RF/microwave source 110 may include … solid state devices (e.g. transistors, diodes, etc.)“) and cylindrical (cylindrical, see par. 13 top, chassis 105b), the inner cross-sectional area being circular (see par. 16: “cylindrical ceramic discharge channel 130”) or elliptical or similar to a circle;
wherein
- the permanent magnet stack (2) 125 is arranged spatially in the length beyond (see fig. 1) the coaxial electrode arrangement 112,113;
- the inner coaxial conductor (3.1) 113 projects beyond the outer coaxial conductor (3.2) 112 over a defined length interval (zc1, zc2) (see length of inner conductor 113 that extends beyond outer conductor 112 in fig. 1);
- the cathode (5) 150 has a high transparency1 (the ions in channel 105a are not blocked by the cathode and thus there is high transparency consistent with applicant col. 5, ll. 20-30);
- the anode (4) 145 does not extend spatially into (see fig. 1) the coaxial conductor (3) 112,113 and is arranged downstream of (see fig. 1) the coaxial conductor (3) 112,113 in the direction of flow (propellant gas atoms from inlet 140 flow axially towards chassis outlet at location 135 in fig. 1);
- the permanent magnets (the at least one magnet 125; also see obviousness statement below) all have the same magnetization direction in the axial direction (see par. 15; the axially directed magnetic field is necessary to provide a circular electric field via the right hand fuel in order provide collisions in order to remove electrons from the propellant gas atoms for ionization, see par. 19);
- a microwave generator 110 is galvanically isolated (see fig. 1 dielectric window 115; see par. 15: “The dielectric window 115 may operate to prevent plasma or other gases, including ionizable gases, from the interior of the second cylindrical chassis 105b from contacting the ionization source housed or provided in the interior of the first cylindrical chassis 105a”) from the generated plasma (see par. 15);
- exactly one ionization zone (at least 120) and exactly one acceleration zone (at least 135) are provided, these being arranged spatially and electrically in succession (see fig. 1) and merging2 into (see fig. 1) one another (the gas atoms from inlet 140 are ionized by ECR in zone 120 and then the resulting ions and free electrons are accelerated in zone 135);
whereby in operation
- a microwave field can be formed between the outer coaxial conductor potential 112 and the inner coaxial conductor potential 113 (the inner conductor is charged by the microwave generator 110 and thus there is a potential difference between the inner and outer conductor; and the outer conductor of a coaxial cable bounds the microwaves emitted by the inner conductor wherein the microwaves travel; between the two; for example the energy for propagating the microwaves is applied to the inner conductor 113 and thus inner conductor is at a higher potential relative to the outer conductor 112, see par. 19, top; coaxial microwave transmission lines are discussed at pertinent prior art infra);
- the ionization zone 120 can be formed near (see fig. 1) the inner coaxial conductor (3.1) 113 in (the inner conductor 113 is within the instant length) the defined length interval (zc1, zc2) (see length of inner conductor 113 that extends beyond outer conductor 112 in fig. 1);
- the acceleration zone (at least 135) is formed spatially between (see annotated figure below) the anode (4) and the cathode (5);
- in the ionization zone (at least 120), an axial (see par. 15) static (the magnet 125 is shown as stationary and the field strength may is capable of being non-varying; see par. 15) magnetic field generated by the permanent magnet stack (2) 125 and a radial (see annotate figure below) high-frequency (field generated with microwave frequency sufficient for ECR, see par. 14; this is consistent with applicant p. 6, ll. 15-20) electric field generated by the microwave field with the resonance condition between the microwave and electron cyclotron frequency being fulfilled are present (see pars. 14-15);
- the path under the influence of the magnetic field is constructively short for ions formed in the ionization zone (the length of portion 120 of ionization zone is for example shorter than the length of the channel 130);
- the magnetic field of the permanent magnet stack (2) runs in the direction of the magnets after the end of the magnetic field influence, so that free electrons are spatially bound to the magnetic field and free ions are not influenced or only slightly influenced by the magnetic field (the magnetic field extends into the acceleration stage portion 135 as pointed out in par. 15; such field strength can be varied, see par. 15; because the electron mass is much smaller than that of an ion of xenon, see par. 12, the instant field is capable of binding the free electrons while permitting the heavier ions to pass through).
PNG
media_image1.png
607
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Spatially between anode and cathode)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (radial electric field)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (face at upstream end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (face at downstream end)][AltContent: arrow]
Diamant meets the claim limitation “at least one permanent magnet” as explained above. Claim 1 then recites “the permanent magnets all have the same magnetization direction” at line 19 (see 112 section above). In the scenario applicant is positively reciting more than permanent magnet, it can be said that Diamant does not disclose a second permanent magnet. It is further noted that “the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” (see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.).
Mazouffre teaches a microwave cyclotron resonance plasma thruster (see fig. 13 on page 19) and further teaches two permanent magnets (see page 18, right, bottom: “set of permanent magnets”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Diamant with two permanent magnets because there is no evidence on the record of new and unexpected results due to the use of more than one permanent magnet.
Regarding claim 5, Diamant, or in the alternative Diamant in view of Mazouffre, teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Diament discloses wherein the coaxial electrode arrangement 112,113 bisects (the physical structure of the inner conductor 113 and the emanating microwaves at the midpoint of a length of the magnet 124; in addition the tip of the conductor 113 divides the magnet into two parts; bisect can be interpreted as “To cut or divide into two parts, especially two equal parts”, https://www.thefreedictionary.com/bisect) the permanent magnet stack (2) 125 over a length of the permanent magnet stack (2) 125.
Regarding claim 7, Diamant, or in the alternative Diamant in view of Mazouffre, teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Diament discloses wherein all connections of the generated plasma (the plasma is generated from the gas atoms entering at inlet 140 and thus is generated in the discharge channel 130; see par. 15) to the thruster generator 110 are insulated by at least one of a ceramic (6) (see chassis 105a that is ceramic; see par. 13) and another dielectric (dielectric window 115). Diamant further points out “The dielectric window 115 may operate to prevent plasma or other gases, including ionizable gases, from the interior of the second cylindrical chassis 105b from contacting the ionization source housed or provided in the interior of the first cylindrical chassis 105a.”
Regarding claim 10, Diamant, or in the alternative Diamant in view of Mazouffre, teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Diament discloses a method for space travel (see par. 3, top) comprising providing the microwave cyclotron resonance plasma thruster 100 according to Claim 1 to a space vehicle (see par. 11) and propelling (see “propulsion systems” in par. 11) the vehicle with the thruster.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diamant in view of Mazouffre as evidenced by US 20050210859 A1 (Bossmann).
Regarding claim 2, The combination Diamant in view of Mazouffre teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above including plural permanent magnets (Mazouffre taught a “set” of permanent magnets in the claim 1 analysis above in the 102/103 section). The combination does not teach wherein the permanent magnet stack (2) comprises exactly four permanent magnets. Bossmann fig. 8 is evidence one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a “set” of permanent magnets to include exactly four permanent magnets 8-9 (about electron acceleration channel 8-6) wherein the permanent magnets 8-9 about combustion chamber 8-4 are optional (see Bossman par. 105).
Claim(s) 3, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diamant in view of NPL “Design Optimization and Experiment of 5-cm ECR Ion Thruster” (Fu), or in the alternative over Diamant in view of Mazouffre as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fu.
Regarding claim 3, Diamant, or in the alternative Diamant in view of Mazouffre, teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Diamant does not teach wherein the cathode (5) is formed as a grid or ring with high transparency.
Fu teaches (see figs. 1 and 7) a microwave ECR thruster and further teaches a cathode (5) (negative potential acceleration grid (AG), see fig. 7) is formed as a grid or ring (see AG in fig. 1 and 7) with high transparency (there is “low impingement current” at AG and thus a high ion flow through at the AG’ see page 678, section B., ll. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Diamant, or in the alternative Diamant in view of Mazouffre, with wherein the cathode (5) is formed as a grid or ring with high transparency as taught by Fu in order to facilitate improving propellant utilization (see Fu section B., ll. 5-6).
Regarding claim 8, Diamant, or in the alternative Diamant in view of Mazouffre, teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Diament discloses (see fig. 1) a method of operating the microwave cyclotron resonance plasma thruster (1) 100 according to Claim 1, wherein a thrust is generated (see par. 17, middle) in operation by ions emerging from the thruster (1) (see par. 17: via “the discharge opening of the second cylindrical chassis 105b”), wherein
- a static (the magnet 125 is shown as stationary and the field strength is capable of being non-varying; see par. 15) magnetic field with a field strength (see par. 15) for fulfilling the conditions of the electron cyclotron resonance (EZR) effect (see par. 15) is present through the permanent magnet stack 125 (2), wherein field lines (8) (the magnetic field is in both chassis portion 105a and chassis portion 105b, see par. 15; such lines of chassis 105b are shown in fig. 1; one of ordinary skill would understand that the field lines in chassis 105a near the magnet 125 structure extend from an upstream end face to a downstream end face, see annotated figure above, this is evidenced by Mazouffre fig. 13 showing “B field” lines at upstream end face and downstream end face wherein fig. 13 is an ECR microwave plasma thruster3; in the scenario of only one permanent magnet regarding 102 portion of claim 1 analysis above, this is shown at Mazouffre fig. 8 when viewing one magnet) of the magnetic flux density emerge at one end face of the permanent magnet stack (2) and run back through the inner space (the central space of chassis 105a) enclosed by the permanent magnet stack (2) 125 to the other end face of the permanent magnet stack (2);
- an alternating voltage (see alternating voltage/current microwave generator 110 in Diamant fig. 1) with a frequency (microwave frequency, see par. 15) for generating a radial electric field (see annotated figure above) between the inner coaxial conductor (3.1) 113 and the outer coaxial conductor (3.2) 112 is applied to fulfill the conditions of the EZR effect (see “electron cyclotron resonance” in par. 15);
- an electrically neutral gas (see inert gas xenon in par. 12; this is consistent with applicant page 10, ll. 1-5 discussing “noble gas”) is supplied via a gas inlet (7) 140 into the microwave cyclotron resonance plasma thruster (1) (the channel portion 130);
- the gas flows along the coaxial conductor (3) (see par. 20 “the transmission line 112 and/or antenna 113 may be directly immersed in the ionizable gas or plasma”; this is evidenced by Mazouffre fig. 13)
- plasma formation takes place in the length interval (zcl, zc2) due to the resonance condition being met between the microwave and electron cyclotron frequency (plasma forms in chassis 105b that can include conductor 113 therein; see par. 15);
- the plasma formed propagates in the direction (plasma that includes ions and free electrons is discharged by way of acceleration from discharge end of channel 130 to create thrust, see par. 16) of the anode (4) 145, wherein
- free electrons are retained by the magnetic field after the end of the magnetic field exposure and
- free ions (plasma includes the propellant gas atoms that have lost an electron via ECR collisions, see par. 15) pass through (see fig. 1) the anode (4) 145, are electrostatically accelerated (see acceleration zone 135) in the area between (see annotated figure above) the anode (4) 145 and cathode (5) 150 and exit the system (at discharge end of channel 130, see par. 16). Diamant does not teach the exit is through the cathode (5).
Fu teaches (see figs. 1 and 7) a microwave ECR thruster and further teaches an exit is through a cathode (negative potential acceleration grid (AG), see fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Diamant, or in the alternative Diamant in view of Mazouffre, with the exit is through the cathode (5) as taught by Fu in order to facilitate improving propellant utilization (see Fu section B., ll. 5-6).
Regarding claim 9, Diamant in view of Fu, or in the alternative Diamant in view of Mazouffre and Fu, teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Diamant teaches wherein free electrons (the “gyromotion” of ECR causes electrons to be freed from the propellant gas atoms during ionization, see par. 19) are reflected back from the generation area (generation area is a broad term and can refer to any area of the thruster 100 because such thruster generates thrust) into the ionization zone by the magnetic field (the magnetic field dashed lines in fig. 1 run towards the magnet 125; this is consistent with applicant page 7, top wherein the term “running” refers to either direction regarding the end faces) running towards the end faces of the magnets. The magnetic field lines near the wall of discharge channel 130 in Diamant fig. 1 have a radial component. Thus the generated electric field by the magnetic field can have an axial component that can repel the free electrons into the ionization zone for example at 120. In addition the negatively charged cathode taught by Fu will repel the negative charged free electrons back towards the ionization zone.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diamant in view of Mazouffre and NPL “Performance Comparison of an ECR Plasma Thruster using Argon and Xenon as Propellant Gas” (Jarrige).
Diamant, or in the alternative Diamant in view of Mazouffre, teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Diamant does not teach wherein the microwaves are in the range of 2.4 to 2.5 GHz and the magnetic field strength has a value of 85.7 to 89.3 mT.
Mazouffre teaches wherein the microwaves are in the range of 2.4 to 2.5 GHz (see “2.45 Ghz” at page 19, left, top).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Diamant, or in the alternative Diamant in view of Mazouffre with the microwaves are in the range of 2.4 to 2.5 GHz as taught by Mazouffre in order to facilitate efficient transition to the plasma (see Mazouffre at page 19, left, top).
Jarrige teaches an ECR plasma thruster with microwave resonance (see abstract and fig. 1; Jarrige is cited as reference “70” by Mazouffre at page 19, left, top) and further teaches a magnetic field strength has a value of 85.7 to 89.3 mT (see page 2, bottom wherein 875 Gauss = 87.5 mT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Diamant in view of Mazouffre with the magnetic field strength has a value of 85.7 to 89.3 mT as taught by Jarrige in order to facilitate meeting the ECR resonance condition (see Jarrige page 2, bottom).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diamant, or in the alternative over Diamant in view of Mazouffre, and further in view of US 20060186837 A1 (Hruby).
Diamant, or in the alternative Diamant in view of Mazouffre, teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Diamant does not teach wherein the permanent magnet stack (2) is formed from ferrite.
Hruby teaches an ion thruster (see abstract and par. 4) and further teaches a permanent magnet stack is formed from ferrite. Magnets for such thrusters may comprise a variety of materials including ferrite (see par. 51). It is further noted that “when 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.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the ferrite magnet material of Hruby for magnet material of Diamant, or in the alternative Diamant in view of Mazouffre, for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of providing magnetic field of the combination.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
NPL regarding overview of coaxial transmission lines.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC J AMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-9948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/MARC AMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
1 This is interpreted as applicant being their own lexicographer by way of applicant col. 5, ll. 20-30. The dictionary definition of transparency is “Capable of transmitting light so that objects or images can be seen as if there were no intervening material” (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/transparent) that refers to EM waves in the visible spectrum wherein applicant refers to microwave spectrum.
2 In the ionization zone the magnetic field causes centripetal acceleration of the propellant atoms to cause ionization and the magnetic field provides some acceleration in the zone 135 (see par. 15 bottom). Thus the two zones can be said to merge with each other.
3 See title of fig. 13 and see section “6.3.2. Microwave plasma thrusters” at page 18, right, middle.
Prosecution Insights