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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/29/26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amendment necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented due to the added language in claims 1, 9.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11-13 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11-13 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
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 –
PNG
media_image1.png
281
1244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morishita et al. (US 20100301736 A1) [hereinafter Morishita].
Regarding claim 1, Morishita teaches an emitter comprising:
first and second heaters (see figs 2,3: 5) generating heat by energization (see e.g. [0005]);
an electron source (see 4) having a side surface and comprising a first material (e.g. LaB6, [0036]) emitting an electron by being heated by the first and second heaters (see e.g. [0005]); and
an intermediate member (see fig 3: 7, e.g. rhenium, [0037]; alternately see fig 2: 6, carbon paste, [0035,37]) interposed between the electron source, and the first and second heaters (see fig 2), the intermediate member comprising a second material lower in thermal conductivity than the first material (natural property of the materials, note applicant’s published specification at e.g. [0026,33]); wherein
the first material is a material selected from a group consisting of a rare earth boride and a precious metal-rare earth alloy (see LaB6, [0036]); and
wherein the intermediate member covers the side surface of the electron source in its entirety (see figs 2, 3).
Regarding claim 2, Morishita may fail to explicitly disclose a length of a shortest path of the intermediate member passing from the heater to the electron source is 100 μm or more (see 5-100 micrometers, Morishita, [0041]).
Regarding claim 4, Morishita teaches the second material is at least one material selected from carbon, boron carbide, boron nitride, and rhenium (see Morishita, [0037]).
Regarding claim 7, Morishita teaches the intermediate member covers a surface of the electron source other than an electron emission surface (see Morishita, figs 2,3).
Regarding claim 8, Morishita teaches a device comprising the emitter according to claim 1 (see Morishita, figs 2,3)
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image2.png
158
934
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Morishita, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yasuda (JP2017201609A).
Regarding claim 3, Morishita may fail to explicitly disclose an electrical resistivity value of the intermediate member is 300 μΩ m or less, and an electrical resistivity value of the heater is 500 μΩ m or more. However, these appear to be natural properties of the two materials (e.g. rhenium, see [0037], at 0.2 μΩ·m (see published spec at [0039]); alternately carbon paste, Morishita, [0035]) (see e.g. thermolytic carbon, [0055]; alternately note obviousness of using glassy carbon for similar reasons as claim 5 above). It is unclear what the electrical resistive properties of the thermolytic carbon heater block is. However, Yasuda teaches a known effective pyrolytic (thermolytic) graphite heaters for use in electron emitters (see e.g. Yasuda, [0077]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the use of the known effective heater of Yasuda to enable the intended operation of heating the emitter. It is noted the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 5, 9, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Morishita, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Futamoto et al. (US 4193013 A) [hereinafter Futamoto].
Regarding claim 5, Morishita may fail to explicitly disclose the second material is glassy carbon. However, Morishita teaches that different carbon-containing materials may be used as a gap-filling material (see Morishita, [0035,37,46-47]). Futamoto teaches using glassy carbon as a known effective binding material for fixing LaB6 emitters which enables moldable formation around the emitter, and notably provides avoids cracking (see e.g. Futamoto, col 7, lines 17-19, 37-39). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Futamoto in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable the intended operation of the system, including trying one of the known effective binding materials, including the moldable glassy carbon that resists cracking, as taught by Futamoto. It is noted the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 9, Morishita teaches an emitter comprising:
first and second heaters (see figs 2,3: 5) generating heat by energization (see e.g. [0005]);
an electron source (see 4) having a side surface and comprising a first material (e.g. LaB6, [0036]) emitting an electron by being heated by the first and second heaters (see e.g. [0005]); and
an intermediate member (see fig 3: 7, e.g. rhenium, [0037]; alternately see fig 2: 6, carbon paste, [0035,37]) interposed between the electron source, and the first and second heaters (see fig 2), the intermediate member comprising a second material lower in thermal conductivity than the first material (natural property of the materials, note applicant’s published specification at e.g. [0026,33]); wherein
wherein the intermediate member covers the side surface of the electron source in its entirety (see figs 2, 3).
It is unclear if the electrical resistivity of the intermediate member is 1 to 100 μΩm. However, Morishita teaches that different carbon-containing materials may be used as a gap-filling material (see Morishita, [0035,37,46-47]). Futamoto teaches using glassy carbon as a known effective binding material for fixing LaB6 emitters which enables moldable formation around the emitter, and notably provides avoids cracking (see e.g. Futamoto, col 7, lines 17-19, 37-39). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Futamoto in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable the intended operation of the system, including trying one of the known effective binding materials, including the moldable glassy carbon that resists cracking, as taught by Futamoto. It is noted the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, the combined teaching of Morishita and Futamoto teaches the electrical resistivity of the intermediate member is 1 to 100 μΩm (natural property of glassy carbon).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Morishita and Futamoto teaches the second material is at least one material selected from carbon (see Futamoto, col 7, lines 17-19, 37-39), boron carbide, boron nitride, and rhenium.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of Morishita and Futamoto teaches the second material is glassy carbon (see Futamoto, col 7, lines 17-19, 37-39).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Morishita and Futamoto, as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Yasuda (JP2017201609A).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Morishita and Futamoto may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Yasuda, for similar reasons as claim 3 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm 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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights