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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hosch et al. (US 2010/0032587 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Hosch teaches “a magnet system (502), comprising: a vacuum container for containing a vacuum (504); a supplied magnetic field (SMF) producer (526) configured to create a supplied magnetic field (527) and a supplied alternating electric field producer (SAEF) (520+540) configured to create a supplied alternating electric field (see Figs. 25b, 25c); and an electron source (510) positioned so as to release electrons in the vacuum container into the SMF and the SAEF (see Fig. 15) such that the electrons form an electron coil in the vacuum (paragraph 136), wherein the electron coil creates a self-generated magnetic field (inherent; a moving electrical charge necessarily generates a magnetic field)”.
With respect to claim 2: Hosch teaches “The system of claim 1 (see above), wherein the SMF producer comprises fixed magnets (126a, 126b, 126c)”.
With respect to claim 3: Hosch teaches “The system of claim 1 (see above), wherein the SMF producer comprises Helmholtz coils (paragraph 136; Helmholtz coils are ring magnets spaced at intervals that result in a uniform magnetic field (i.e. having parallel magnetic flux lines), which matches Hosch’s description of magnets 126a, 126b, and 126c in paragraph 136)“.
With respect to claim 4: Hosch teaches “the system of claim 1 (see above), wherein the SAEF producer comprises a split (520, 540) metallic (paragraph 118) cylinder (see Fig. 9c) connected to an AC source (see Figs. 15, 25b, 25c)”.
With respect to claim 7: Hosch teaches “The system of claim 1 (see above), further comprising a shielding container (unlabeled; see Figs. 26-29)”.
With respect to claim 8: Hosch teaches “The system of claim 1 (see above), wherein the electron source includes an emission mechanism selected from the group consisting of thermionic (Fig. 22), photocathode (Fig. 23), field emission (Fig. 21), or plasma source”.
With respect to claim 9: Hosch teaches “the system of claim 1 (see above), wherein the electron source comprises an electron source output (514), wherein the vacuum container is substantially cylindrical (see Fig. 6b), and wherein the electron source output is positioned substantially along the central axis of the vacuum container (see Figs. 28b, 28c)”.
With respect to claim 10: Hosch teaches “The system of claim 1 (see above), wherein the electron source is an electron gun (510) including one or more of an electron velocity control, an angle control and/or a focus control (paragraph 126)”.
With respect to claim 11: Hosch teaches “The system of claim 1 (see above), further comprising a metallic core (524d) having an aperture to accommodate the electron source therein (see Fig. 10), wherein the metallic core includes a plurality of holes along a length of the metallic core (see Fig. 8d)”.
With respect to claim 12: Hosch teaches “The system of claim 11 (see above), wherein the metallic core comprises a material with high magnetic permeability and/or a high magnetic saturation level (paragraph 131)”.
With respect to claim 13: Hosch teaches “The system of claim 11 (see above), wherein the metallic core comprises an alloy (paragraph 131) such as mu-metal”.
With respect to claim 14: Hosch teaches “The system of claim 1 (see above), configured to be used as an electromagnet without wires in one or more of: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners, radio transceivers, electromagnetic motors, electromagnetic generators, electromechanical solenoids, transformer primary windings transformer secondary winding, relays, loudspeakers, hard disks, scientific instruments (see title), or magnetic separation equipment”.
With respect to claim 15: Hosch teaches “a method for creating a self-generated magnetic field (method of using 502), comprising: providing a vacuum container for containing a vacuum (504), a supplied magnetic field (SMF) producer configured to create a supplied magnetic field (526), a supplied alternating electric field (SAEF) producer configured to create a supplied alternating electric field (520+540), and an electron source (510) positioned so as to release electrons in the vacuum container into the SMF and the SAEF (see Fig. 15); and releasing the electrons into the SMF and the SAEF within the vacuum to create an electron coil (paragraph 136), wherein the electron coil creates a self-generated magnetic field (inherent; a moving electrical charge necessarily generates a magnetic field)”.
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rangwalla et al. (US 20040089820 A1).
With respect to claim 5: Hosch teaches “The system of claim 1 (see above)”.
Hosch does not specifically teach “further comprising one or more repelling plates for repulsion of released electrons substantially towards the center of the SAEF”.
However, Rangwalla teaches “further comprising one or more repelling plates (120) for repulsion of released electrons substantially towards the center of the SAEF (paragraph 36)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hosch with a repelling plate as taught by Rangwalla in order to prevent electrons from escaping in an undesired direction (Rangwalla paragraph 36).
With respect to claim 6: Hosch in view of Rangwalla teaches “The system of claim 5 (see above)”.
Hosch further teaches “further comprising a DC power source connected to the split cylinder (see Figs. 15, 25a)”.
Hosch does not specifically teach that the DC power source is connected to the repelling plate.
However, Rangwalla teaches the repelling plate being supplied at a fixed voltage (Rangwalla paragraph 39).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hosch with a repelling plate as taught by Rangwalla in order to prevent electrons from escaping in an undesired direction (Rangwalla paragraph 36) and to connect the repelling plate to the power source to enable it to perform that function (Rangwalla paragraph 39).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Snow (US 3660770), which teaches a magnetically controlled electron generator.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875