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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/25 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 21-31 are under examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments overcome the 112(b) rejections, which are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the prior art rejections, which are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks dated 12/26/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Examiner acknowledged on pages 10-11 of the 09/23/2025 Final Rejection that Carr does not teach previous claim 31. However, Examiner stated on pages 10-11 that Perkins teaches this limitation. Examiner did not make a judgment on whether or not Carr teaches this limitation. A review of the Examiner’s citation in Perkins shows that this limitation was treated as a desired result which was explained by the Specification as being caused by the actively performed step of increasing the voltage. Both Carr And Perkins were cited as increasing the voltage. Accordingly, Carr discloses this desired result, as cited in the below 102 rejection section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 102 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1–3 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carr (US 3,581,093).
Regarding claim 1, Carr discloses a method, comprising: operating a neutron generator (10) in a loading mode by: ionizing ionizable gas within an ion source (12) of the neutron generator to create a plurality of ions (“ions,” col. 3, l. 65); and accelerating the plurality of ions by providing a first voltage (“20 to 30 kV,” col. 5, l. 22) to a target rod (28) that supports a target of the neutron generator to create a first ion beam that bombards the target (col. 3, ll. 65-67), wherein the first voltage has a first value ranging from approximately 10 kilovolts (kV) to 50 kV (“20 to 30 kV,” col. 5, l. 22); and operating the neutron generator in a generating mode to generate a plurality of neutrons by accelerating the plurality of ions by providing a second voltage (“100-170 kV,” col. 5, l. 38) to the target rod (28) to create a second ion beam that bombards the target, wherein the second voltage is greater than the first voltage, wherein the second voltage has a second value ranging from approximately 60 kV and 130 kV (“100-170 kV,” col. 5, l. 38), and wherein the second ion beam has a smaller beam spot size on the target than the first ion beam (according to the Specification, this desired result occurs when “The second voltage is greater than the first voltage, which causes the second ion beam of the accelerated ions to be more focused [e.g., narrower or smaller in beam spot size on target] than the first ion beam,” ¶ 22). In this case, the second voltage in Carr is indeed greater than the second voltage: 100-170 kV is greater than 20-30 kV, as cited above. As explained in MPEP 2111.04, a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited1.’" In this case, setting the beam spot size itself is not an actively performable step but is instead a desired result caused by the step of setting the second voltage to a higher value than the first voltage. Therefore, this desired result is not given patentable weight per MPEP 2111.04 because “it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.”
Regarding claim 2, Carr anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the first ion beam is defocused relative to the second ion beam (“a defocused spot of ions,” col. 3, ll. 69-70).
Regarding claim 3, Carr anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the first ion beam is incident on a front surface of the target (28, as shown in Figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 31, Carr anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein a diameter of the second ion beam is smaller than a diameter of the target (as shown in Fig. 1, at least at the point it passes through aperture 72, the diameter of the ion beam is smaller than the diameter of the target).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 21–26, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (US 2009/0219028) in view of Carr (US 3,581,093).
Examiner notes that claim 1 requires no sequence. The first voltage of the loading may be applied to the target before or after the second voltage of the generating mode, or both voltages could be applied to the target simultaneously.
Regarding claim 1, Perkins discloses a method, comprising: operating a neutron generator in a loading mode by: ionizing ionizable gas within an ion source of the neutron generator to create a plurality of ions (“An ionizer 12C disposed in the tube 12A may cause the released gas to be ionized,” ¶ 22); and accelerating the plurality of ions by providing a first voltage to a target rod (12E) that supports a target (“deuterium or tritium adsorbed in the target 12E,” ¶ 22) of the neutron generator to create a first ion beam that bombards the target (“When ionized, the deuterium or tritium gas may be drawn to a target 12E by a high voltage imparted between the target 12E and a focusing or other electrode 12D disposed in the tube,” ¶ 22); and operating the neutron generator in a generating mode to generate a plurality of neutrons by accelerating the plurality of ions (“When ionized, the deuterium or tritium gas may be drawn to a target 12E by a high voltage imparted between the target 12E and a focusing or other electrode 12D disposed in the tube…results in production of helium and free neutrons,” ¶ 22) by providing a second voltage to the target rod to create a second ion beam that bombards the target, wherein the second voltage is greater than the first voltage (“increasing the target voltage,” claim 11).
Perkins does not explicitly suggest the claimed numerical voltage settings.
Carr does. Carr is also in the art area of neutron generators and teaches operating a neutron generator (10) in a loading mode by applying a first voltage to a target (28), wherein the first voltage has a first value ranging from approximately 10-50 kV (“25-75 kV,” col. 5, ll. 45-46); and operating the neutron generator (10) in a generating mode by applying a second voltage to the target (28), wherein the second voltage has a second value ranging from approximately 60-130 kV (“100-170 kV,” col. 5, l. 56).
The person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used the cyclical increasing and decreasing voltages as taught by Carr in order to reload the target’s depleted tritium periodically to maintain the desired neutron output, as explained by Carr in col. 5, ll. 44-61.
Regarding claim 2, modified Perkins discloses all the elements of the parent claim. Perkins additionally discloses wherein the first ion beam is defocused relative to the second ion beam (per ¶ 22 of the instant Specification, the first ion beam will necessarily be less focused due to the change in voltage2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Perkins discloses all the elements of the parent claim. Perkins additionally discloses (Fig. 2) wherein the first ion beam is incident on a front surface area of the target (12E; “When ionized, the deuterium or tritium gas may be drawn to a target 12E by a high voltage imparted between the target 12E and a focusing or other electrode 12D disposed in the tube…results in production of helium and free neutrons,” ¶ 22).
Regarding claim 6, modified Perkins discloses all the elements of the parent claim. Perkins additionally discloses making a determination that a neutron generation value (measured “neutron output” value, claim 10), for a particular value (maximum/limit voltage value, claim 10) of the second voltage, is less than a threshold neutron generation value (“neutron output has decreased,” claim 10); and operating the neutron generator in the loading mode (in light of claim 1, this limitation is interpreted as meaning the voltage is decreased) after operating the neutron generator in the generating mode responsive to the determination (if the target voltage is determined to be at its maximum/limit and the neutron output has decreased, then voltage is decreased, claim 10).
Regarding claim 7, modified Perkins discloses all the elements of the parent claim. Perkins additionally discloses making a determination that the second voltage (maximum/limit voltage, claim 10), for a particular neutron generation value (measured “neutron output” value, claim 10), is greater than a threshold voltage (if the target voltage is determined to be at its maximum/limit, claim 10); and operating the neutron generator in the loading mode (in light of claim 1, this limitation is interpreted as meaning the voltage is decreased) after operating the neutron generator in the generating mode responsive to the determination (if the target voltage is determined to be at its maximum/limit, it is decreased, claim 10).
Regarding claim 8, modified Perkins discloses all the elements of the parent claim. Perkins additionally discloses determining that an amount of time of operating the neutron generator in the generating mode is greater than a threshold (e.g., at or approaching the “end of the lifetime of the neutron generator,” ¶ 32, which may be the case “where the reliability of the neutron generator with respect to ordinary high voltage is uncertain,” ¶ 32); and operating the neutron generator in the loading mode (in light of claim 1, this limitation is interpreted as meaning the voltage is decreased) after operating the neutron generator in the generating mode responsive to determining that the amount of time is greater than the threshold (at or approaching the “end of lifetime,” as indicated by a perceived potential lack of reliability, the voltage may be adjusted, including reduced, to lower the stresses on the high voltage insulation system, ¶ 32; Examiner additionally notes that when the neutron generator reaches its end of life, its voltage will necessarily decrease from its set value all the way down to zero, which would include passing the voltage values recited in claim 1 defined by the loading mode).
Regarding claim 9, modified Perkins discloses all the elements of the parent claim. Perkins additionally discloses stopping operating in the loading mode (in light of claim 1, this limitation is interpreted as meaning the voltage is increased [or the apparatus is no longer operative]) responsive to determining that a neutron generation value, for a particular value (a value higher than an initial value but lower than the max value) of the second voltage, is above a threshold neutron generation value (if neutron output is present [e.g., above the threshold of the neutron detector’s baseline detectable value], then the voltage may be increased, claim 11).
Regarding claim 10, modified Perkins discloses all the elements of the parent claim. Perkins additionally discloses deploying a logging tool including the neutron generator into a wellbore (“moving a well logging instrument through a wellbore,” claim 9); transmitting the plurality of neutrons from the neutron generator into a formation surrounding the wellbore (“neutron output of the pulsed neutron generator,” claim 9); and receiving a signal measurement related to the plurality of neutrons at one or more sensors in the logging tool (“measuring radiation events related to interaction of neutrons from the generator with at least one of the formations and the wellbore,” claim 9).
Regarding claim 21, modified Perkins discloses all the elements of the parent claim. Perkins additionally discloses operating the neutron generator in a pulsed mode to generate the neutrons in pulses according to a timing sequence (pulsed neutron generator,” claim 9).
Regarding claims 22-24, modified Perkins discloses operating the neutron generator in a pulsed mode to generate the neutrons in pulses according to a timing sequence (pulsed neutron generator,” claim 9) but does not explicitly specify wherein a duration of each pulse is between 10-80 microseconds, an idle time between the pulses is between 50 to 1000 microseconds, or a duty factor of the pulsed mode is between 5-30 percent.
Modified Perkins discloses the invention except for the numerical ranges recited. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a duration between 10-80 ms, an idle time between 50-1000 ms, and a duty factor between 5-30%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In this case, Applicant will appreciate that pulsed neutron generators are conventional technology, and operators are well-versed in setting and updating their parameters prior to and during operation.
Regarding claim 25, modified Perkins teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Perkins additionally discloses wherein the ionizable gas comprises deuterium gas (“ deuterium and/or tritium gas,” ¶ 22).
Regarding claim 26, modified Perkins teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Perkins additionally discloses wherein the ionizable gas comprises tritium gas (“deuterium and/or tritium gas,” ¶ 22). Regarding claim 31, Carr anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein a diameter of the second ion beam is smaller than a diameter of the target (as shown in Fig. 1, at least at the point it passes through aperture 72, the diameter of the ion beam is smaller than the diameter of the target).
Regarding claim 31, modified Perkins teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Perkins additionally discloses wherein a diameter of the second ion beam is smaller than a diameter of the target (as shown in the lower portion of Fig. 2, there are at least two electrodes through which the beam must pass prior to impacting the target, and both electrodes have apertures smaller than the diameter of the target 12E).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Carr2 (US 3,141,975).
Regarding claim 4, Perkins anticipates all the elements of the parent claims and additionally teaches wherein the first ion beam is incident on the front surface area of a target but does not specify what portion of the front surface area of the target is contacted.
Carr2 does. Carr2 is in the same area and teaches (Figs. 8 and 11) a first ion beam (229) wherein the first ion beam is incident on at least 80% of a surface area of the target (194; as shown in Figs. 8 and 11).
The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize such a well-dispersed ion beam because, as described by Carr2 (col. 8, ll. 59-34), this allows the ions to “insure evenly distributed neutron producing hits on the deuterium loaded target. The irons are thus completely defocused in their path between the ion source and the target.” When the ions/neutrons are not focused and evenly distributed in this manner, this “result[s] in heat damage to [the] target,” col. 8, ll. 42-44.
Claims 27–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Groves (US 2009/0135982).
Regarding claims 27–30, modified Perkins teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Perkins additionally discloses wherein the target includes metal (“filament,” e.g., ¶ 34, generally understood in the art to comprise a metal) but does not explicitly detail the elements therein.
Groves does. Groves is also in the art area of neutron generators and teaches a target comprising a metal foil layer (“The target 24 preferably comprises a thin metal hydride film of titanium, scandium or zirconium,” ¶ 24), a titanium foil layer (id.), a zirconium foil layer (id.), a scandium foil layer (id.).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a metal layer including Ti or Zr or Sc, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. The skilled artisan would not have been surprised by the results of any of these metals used within the target.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY C GARNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9587. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 CT.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
LILY CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
2 “The second voltage is greater than the first voltage, which causes the second ion beam of the accelerated ions to be more focused (e.g., narrower or smaller in beam spot size on target) than the first ion beam.” Specification at ¶ 22.