DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/04/2025 has been entered.
In virtue of the RCE:
Claims 1-15 and 17-21 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 3 and 16 are canceled.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s argument of claim 10 has been considered but it is not persuasive because section (A) in par [0060] of TSUJI states that coating layer 6 made of diamond directly formed on the upper surface 2c … the heat radiation property of the X-ray generator 9 is improved. Therefore, layer 6 should be part of heat sink.
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 1-15 and 17-21 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 1, lines 7-8, the limitation “the metal-diamond composite material being a gold-composite material” is not clear because it is not understood how the “diamond” material could be the “gold” material.
Clarification is required.
Claims 2-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on claim 1.
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, 2, 4, 9, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUJI (JP 2012212562 A) in view of STROEMBERG (U.S. Pub. 2023/0129060 A1), and further in view of DE BOER (U.S. Pub. 2016/0079490 A1).
Regarding claim 1, TSUJI discloses a target structure for generation of x-ray radiation (Figs. 1 and 9-11), comprising: a heat sink (heat dissipating parts 3 and 6, Figs. 1 and 9-11) configured to dissipate heat in the target structure, the heat caused by the generation of the x-ray radiation (see Abstract); and a target element (portions 2 and 4, Fig. 1) for electrons (electron beam E, Fig. 1) to strike, the target element (2, 4) being in the heat sink (3) to cool the target element, wherein the heat sink includes a diamond composite material, and the target element (2, 4) has a different material composition than the hear sink (target element (2, 4) include tungsten particle 33 and diamond/copper particles 34, while heat sink (3, 6) include diamond, Figs. 9-11) (pars [0071]-[0073]).
TSUJI does not teach the heat sink includes a metal-diamond composite material.
However, as evidenced by STROEMBERG, providing the heat sink includes a metal-diamond composite material (… heat sink element 140 may be another type of metal-diamond composite material, par [0024]) is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of TSUJI with the heat sink having metal-diamond composite material as taught by STROEMBERG in order to well perform the dissipating heat through the heat sink in x-ray structure.
TSUJI/STROEMBERG does not explicitly teach the metal-diamond composite material being a gold-composite material.
However, as evidenced by DE BOER, providing the metal-diamond composite material (7000A, par [0121]) being a gold-composite material (par [121] shown heat sink 7000A may be made of a material select from gold ... diamond … and combinations of two or more thereof) is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of TSUJI/STROEMBERG with the heat sink having gold-composite material as taught by DE BOER in order to well perform the dissipating heat through the heat sink in x-ray structure.
Regarding claim 2, TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER discloses the target structure wherein the target element (2, 4) includes silver, copper, aluminum or tungsten, and the target element is a different structure from the heat sink (Fig. 1 of TSUJI shows different structure between target element (2, 4) and heat sink (3, 6)).
Regarding claim 4, TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER discloses the target structure wherein the metal-diamond composite material includes a metal (tungsten particles 33) between diamond grains (diamond particles 34, Figs. 9-11 of TSUJI).
Regarding claim 9, TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER discloses the target structure wherein the target element is held in the heat sink by a material-fit connection (e.g., bonding portion 4, Fig. 1 of TSUJI).
Regarding claim 10, TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER discloses the target structure wherein the heat sink (3, 6) completely surrounds the target element (2, 4) (Fig. 1 of TSUJI) (section (A) in par [0060] of TSUJI states that coating layer 6 made of diamond directly formed on the upper surface 2c … the heat radiation property of the X-ray generator 9 is improved. Therefore, layer 6 should be part of heat sink).
Regarding claim 17, TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER discloses the target structure wherein the metal-diamond composite material includes a metal (tungsten particles 33) between diamond grains (diamond particles 34, Figs. 9-11 of TSUJI).
Claim(s) 5, 7, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER, as applied above, in view of ISHIHARA (U.S. Pub. 2017/0045314 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER discloses all of the limitations except a thermal conductivity of the metal-diamond composite material at room temperature is at least 400 W/(mK)
However, as evidenced by ISHIHARA, providing the thermal conductivity of the metal-diamond composite material (aluminum-diamond composites) at room temperature is at least 400 W/(mK) (at least 600 W/mK) (Table 2, par [0096]) is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER with the thermal conductivity of the metal-diamond composite material as taught by ISHIHARA in order to well perform the dissipating heat through the heat sink in x-ray structure.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER discloses all of the limitations except a coefficient of thermal expansion of the metal-diamond composite material is less than 12 ppm/K.
However, as evidenced by ISHIHARA, providing the coefficient of thermal expansion of the metal-diamond composite material (aluminum-diamond composites) is less than 12 ppm/K (6.1/6.3/7 ppm/K) (Table 2) is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER with the coefficient of thermal expansion of the metal-diamond composite material as taught by ISHIHARA in order to well perform the dissipating heat through the heat sink in x-ray structure.
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER, as applied above, in view of Cross (U.S. Pub. 2022/0068585 A1).
Regarding claim 11, TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER discloses the target structure (Figs. 1 and 9-11 of TSUJI).
TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER does not teach a linear electron accelerator comprising: linearly arranged cavities configured to accelerate electrons as part of an evacuated housing; an electron emitter configured to emit the electrons in the evacuated housing; and the target structure in the evacuated housing, wherein the target element is between an x-ray emission window of the evacuated housing and the electron emitter.
However, as evidenced by Cross, providing the linear electron accelerator (Fig. 1) comprising: linearly arranged cavities (124) configured to accelerate electrons (electrons emitted from emitter 110 (Fig. 1) as part of an evacuated housing (106, Fig. 1); an electron emitter (110, Fig. 1) configured to emit the electrons in the evacuated housing (106); and the target structure (structure includes element 112, Fig. 1) in the evacuated housing (106), wherein the target element (112) is between an x-ray emission window of the evacuated housing (106) and the electron emitter (110) (Fig. 1, pars [0023]-[0025]) is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER with the structure of the accelerator as taught by Cross in order to generate the x-ray in the accelerating device.
Regarding claim 12, TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER/Cross discloses linear electron accelerator wherein the target structure is soldered vacuum-tight to the evacuated housing and forms the x-ray emission window (Fig. 1 of Cross).
Regarding claim 13, TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER discloses the target structure (Figs. 1 and 9-11 of TSUJI).
TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER does not teach a stationary anode transmission x-ray tube comprising: an evacuated housing; an electron emitter configured to emit electrons in the evacuated housing; and the target structure being a stationary anode in the evacuated housing, wherein the target element is between an x-ray emission window of the housing and the electron emitter.
However, as evidenced by Cross, providing the stationary anode transmission x-ray tube (Fig. 1) comprising: an evacuated housing (106, Fig. 1); an electron emitter (110, Fig. 1) configured to emit electrons in the evacuated housing (106); and the target structure (structure includes element 112, Fig. 1) being a stationary anode (par [0025], noted that a stationary anode target may also be used) in the evacuated housing (106), wherein the target element (112) is between an x-ray emission window of the housing (106) and the electron emitter (110) (Fig. 1, pars [0023]-[0025]) is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER with the structure of the accelerator as taught by Cross in order to generate the x-ray in the accelerating device.
Regarding claim 14, TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER discloses the target structure (Figs. 1 and 9-11 of TSUJI).
TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER does not teach a stationary anode transmission x-ray tube comprising: an evacuated housing; an electron emitter configured to emit electrons in the evacuated housing; and the target structure being a stationary anode in the evacuated housing, wherein an x-ray emission window of the evacuated housing is to the side of or opposite the target structure.
However, as evidenced by Cross, providing the stationary anode transmission x-ray tube (Fig. 1) comprising: an evacuated housing (106, Fig. 1); an electron emitter (110, Fig. 1) configured to emit electrons in the evacuated housing (106); and the target structure (structure includes element 112, Fig. 1) being a stationary anode (par [0025], noted that a stationary anode target may also be used) in the evacuated housing (106), wherein an x-ray emission window of the housing (106) is to the side of or opposite the target structure (Fig. 1, pars [0023]-[0025]) is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER with the structure of the accelerator as taught by Cross in order to generate the x-ray in the accelerating device.
Regarding claim 15, TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER discloses the target structure (Figs. 1 and 9-11 of TSUJI).
TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER does not teach a rotating anode reflection x-ray tube, comprising: an evacuated housing; an electron emitter configured to emit electrons in the housing; and the target structure being a rotating anode in the evacuated housing, wherein an x-ray emission window of the evacuated housing is to the side of or opposite the target structure.
However, as evidenced by Cross, providing the rotating anode reflection x-ray tube (Fig. 1) comprising: an evacuated housing (106, Fig. 1); an electron emitter (110, Fig. 1) configured to emit electrons in the evacuated housing (106); and the target structure (structure includes element 112, Fig. 1) being a rotating anode (rotating anode target 112, par [0025]) in the evacuated housing (106), wherein an x-ray emission window of the housing (106) is to the side of or opposite the target structure (Fig. 1, pars [0023]-[0025]) is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER with the structure of the accelerator as taught by Cross in order to generate the x-ray in the accelerating device.
Claim(s) 6, 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER as applied above.
Regarding claims 6 and 19, TSUJI/STROEMBERG discloses all of the limitations except the thermal conductivity of the metal-diamond composite material is at least twice a thermal conductivity of the target element.
However, this limitation is not of the patentable merits since providing the thermal conductivity of the metal-diamond composite material is at least twice a thermal conductivity of the target element would have been held obvious to one having skill in the art because the more thermal conductivity of the material in heat sink, the more heat will be dissipated, and the target will have a long lifespan.
Accordingly, setting the thermal conductivity of the metal-diamond composite material is at least twice a thermal conductivity of the target element would have been deemed obvious to one having skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER discloses all of the limitations except a coefficient of thermal expansion of the metal-diamond composite material is at most three times a coefficient of thermal expansion of the target element.
However, this limitation is not of the patentable merits since providing the coefficient of thermal expansion of the metal-diamond composite material is at most three times a coefficient of thermal expansion of the target element would have been held obvious to one having skill in the art because the more coefficient of thermal expansion of the material in heat sink, the more heat will be dissipated, and the target element will have a long lifespan.
Accordingly, setting the coefficient of thermal expansion of the metal-diamond composite material is at most three times a coefficient of thermal expansion of the target element would have been deemed obvious to one having skill in the art.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER, as applied above, in view of Warren (U.S. Pub. 2002/0085678 A1).
TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER discloses all of the limitations as claimed except the target element includes a tungsten-rhenium alloy.
However, as evidenced by Warren, providing the target element (14, Fig. 1) includes a tungsten-rhenium alloy (18, Fig. 1, par 0017]) is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of TSUJI/STROEMBERG/DE BOER with the target element includes a tungsten-rhenium alloy as taught by Warren in order to provide the suitable composite material for proceeding the generation of x-ray in the accelerating device.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached on 571-270-7101. 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 2844