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 .
Response to Amendment
The current Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on December 2, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 6, filed December 2, 2025, with respect to Claims 22-24 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the claims has been withdrawn. Applicant has corrected the dependency of claims 22-24.
Applicant's arguments filed December 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues Tohidi fails to teach an extension tube between a vacuum tube and a vacuum pump because Tohidi fails to describe the backup pump in Fig. 2 and shows a single tube. However, Tohidi shows two tubes attached using an adapter in Fig. 2.
Applicant states that any assertion as to the use to type of pump that back pump is would be speculation, if not impermissible hindsight. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that Tohidi fails to teach an X-ray tube insert. However, as noted in the previous Office action, Panasik discloses the X-ray tube insert in Fig 1. (94). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panasik (U.S. 6,445,769) in view of Sadeghi Tohidi (U.S. 2020/0055150).
Regarding claim 1:
Panasik discloses a system for creating a vacuum in an X-ray tube insert of an X-ray tube, comprising:
an X-ray tube insert (Fig. 1, 94);
a vacuum tube (Fig. 1, 96) having a first end (Fig. 1, 96 has a first end) and a second end (Fig. 1, 96 has a second end), the first end coupled to the X-ray tube insert (Fig. 1, 96 is attached to 94);
a socket (Fig. 1, opening at 94) to couple the first end of the vacuum tube to the X-ray tube insert (Fig. 1, opening 94 allows vacuum line 96 to be attached); and
a vacuum pump (Fig. 1, vacuum 98) to create the vacuum in the X-ray tube insert
However, Panasik fails to disclose an extension tube, the second end of the vacuum tube coupled to the extension tube; an adapter to couple the second end of the vacuum tube to the extension tube; and the vacuum pump coupled to the extension tube.
Sadeghi Tohidi teaches an extension tube (Fig. 2, second tube attached to backup pump), the second end of the vacuum tube coupled to the extension tube (Fig. 2, vacuum pump is attached to a second tube);
an adapter (Fig. 2, adapter between two tubes located between turbo pump and back up pump) to couple the second end of the vacuum tube to the extension tube; and
the vacuum pump (Fig. 2, backup pump) coupled to the extension tube (Fig. 2, backup pump attached to piping).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Panasik with the extension and adapter taught by Sadeghi Tohidi in order to prevent thermal fatigue related damage by improving vacuum efficency (Sadeghi Tohidi; [0015]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panasik (U.S. 6,445,769) in view of Sadeghi Tohidi (U.S. 2020/0055150) applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gunter (DE10319548; notations directed to translated Gunter).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Panasik and Sadeghi Tohidi discloses the system of claim 1.
However, the combination of Panasik and Sadeghi Tohidi fails to disclose wherein the socket is coupled to a support plate of the X-ray tube insert.
Gunter teaches (Translated Gunter; [0017], vacuum tube is connected to suction nozzle which is connected to the lid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Panasik and Sadeghi Tohidi with the socket coupling taught by Gunter in order to extend the life of the X-ray tube by improving durability (Translated Gunter; [0006]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panasik (U.S. 6,445,769) in view of Sadeghi Tohidi (U.S. 2020/0055150) applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trebes (U.S. 6,353,658).
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Panasik and Sadeghi Tohidi discloses the system of claim 1.
However, the combination of Panasik and Sadeghi Tohidi fails to disclose wherein the vacuum tube is copper.
Trebes teaches wherein the vacuum tube is copper (Col. 3, lines 22-40, vacuum tube is made out of copper).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the vacuum tube of Panasik and Sadeghi Tohidi with the material taught by Trebes. One would have been motivated to make such substitution in order to improve the life of the tube by reducing the risk of damage cause by heat. Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute the vacuum tube of Panasik and Sadeghi Tohidi with the material taught by Trebes in order to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Panasik and Sadeghi Tohidi discloses the system of claim 1.
However, the combination of Panasik and Sadeghi Tohidi fails to disclose wherein the socket is stainless steel.
Trebes teaches wherein the socket is stainless steel (Col. 3, lines 22-40, made out of stainless steel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the vacuum tube of Panasik and Sadeghi Tohidi with the material taught by Trebes. One would have been motivated to make such substitution in order to improve the life of the tube by reducing the risk of damage cause by heat. Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute the vacuum tube of Panasik and Sadeghi Tohidi with the material taught by Trebes in order to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Panasik and Sadeghi Tohidi discloses the system of claim 1.
However, the combination of Panasik and Sadeghi Tohidi fails to disclose wherein the adapter is stainless steel.
Trebes teaches wherein the adapter is stainless steel (Col. 3, lines 22-40, made out of stainless steel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the vacuum tube of Panasik and Sadeghi Tohidi with the material taught by Trebes. One would have been motivated to make such substitution in order to improve the life of the tube by reducing the risk of damage cause by heat. Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute the vacuum tube of Panasik and Sadeghi Tohidi with the material taught by Trebes in order to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 14, 16-19, and 21-24 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior arts are Panasik (U.S. 6,445,769), Gunter (DE10319548; notations directed to translated Gunter), and Sadeghi Tohidi (U.S. 2020/0055150).
Regarding claim 12:
Panasik discloses a method of creating a vacuum within an X-ray tube insert comprising:
attaching a first end of a vacuum tube to a socket (Fig. 1, 96 is attached to opening of 94);
attaching the socket to a support plate of the X-ray tube insert (Fig. 1, opening of 94 is attached to 14);
using a vacuum pump to create a vacuum environment in the X-ray tube insert (Col. 1, lines 54-64, molecule and gas removal).
Gunter teaches attaching an adapter to a second end of the vacuum tube (Fig. 1, 7 attached to 8);
using a vacuum pump coupled to the adapter (Translated Gunter; [0018], pump connected to flange); and
pinching off the vacuum tube between the socket and the adapter to seal the vacuum environment (Translated Gunter; [0018], suction nozzle is squeezed),
attaching a extension tube to the adapter (Gunter; Fig. 1, 7 attached to 3).
However, the combination of Panasik, and Gunter fails to disclose wherein the extension tube is coupled to the vacuum pump using a fitting and a plurality of fasteners.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record. Claims 14, and 16-18 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 19:
Panasik discloses an X-ray tube comprising:
an X-ray tube enclosure (Fig. 1, 14);
an X-ray tube insert (Fig. 1, 18 and 16) positioned within the X-ray tube enclosure, the X-ray tube insert including a cathode assembly (Fig. 1, 18) and an anode assembly (Fig. 1, 16);
a vacuum tube (Fig. 1, 96) coupled to the X-ray tube insert (Fig. 1, 96 connected to 14), wherein the X-ray tube insert includes a vacuum environment (Col. 1, lines 54-64, molecule and gas removal).
Gunter teaches a support plate (Fig. 1, 2) coupled between the cathode assembly (Fig, 1, 5) and the anode assembly (Fig. 1, 4);
a vacuum tube coupled to the support plate of the X-ray tube insert (Translated Gunter; [0017], vacuum tube is connected to suction nozzle which is connected to the lid);
wherein the vacuum tube is pinched or cold pressed to seal the vacuum environment within the X-ray tube insert (Translated Gunter; [0018], suction nozzle is squeezed).
However, the combination of Panasik, and Gunter fails to disclose wherein the vacuum tube is welded to the support plate of the X-ray tube insert.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record. Claims 21-24 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884