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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/14/26 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 the independent claim(s).
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11-19 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11-19 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, 4, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasuda et al. (JP2019153563A) [hereinafter Yasuda].
Regarding claim 1, Yasuda teaches an emitter comprising:
first and second heaters (see PG heaters, fig 1: 103a,b) generating heat by energization;
an electron source (see cathode, 101) having a side surface (side of 101 at the tip end (towards top of page)) and comprising a first material (see LaB6, [0032]) emitting an electron by being heated by the first and second heaters (see [0063]); and
an intermediate member (see rhenium cover, 102) interposed between the electron source, and the first and second heaters (see figs 1,3), the intermediate member comprising a second material lower in thermal conductivity than the first material (natural property of rhenium);
wherein the first material (LaB6) is a material selected from a group consisting of a rare earth boride and a precious metal-rare earth alloy; and
wherein the intermediate member (see 102) covers the side surface of the electron source in its entirety without having a cut at a circumferential part (see figs 1,3; see also unitary part when LaB6 is depleted in fig 4).
Regarding claim 4, Yasuda teaches the second material is at least one material selected from carbon, boron carbide, boron nitride, and rhenium (see Yasuda, [0020]).
Regarding claim 7, Yasuda teaches the intermediate member does not cover an electron emission surface (see Yasuda, fig 1; required for operation of system, see e.g. [0047]).
Regarding claim 8, Yasuda teaches a device comprising the emitter according to claim 1 (see e.g. Yasuda, fig 1)
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Morishita et al. (US 20100301736 A1) [hereinafter Morishita].
Regarding claim 2, Yasuda 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. However, it was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide a LaB6 cover having the specified dimensions. For example, Morishita teaches use of a rhenium LaB6 cover of 100 μm being effective to balance space and power consumption requirements (see Morishita, [0041]). 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 Morishita in the system of the prior art to try to enable the intended operation of the system, including balancing space and power consumption, in the manner taught by Morishita.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Yasuda (JP2017201609A) [hereinafter Yasuda II].
Regarding claim 3, Yasuda 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 note obviousness of using glassy carbon for similar reasons as claim 5 below). It is unclear what the electrical resistive properties of the pyrolytic graphite heater block is. However, Yasuda teaches a known effective pyrolytic 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 Yasuda, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Futamoto et al. (US 4193013 A) [hereinafter Futamoto].
Regarding claim 5, Yasuda may fail to explicitly disclose the second material is glassy carbon. However, Yasuda teaches different materials may be used as the cover material (see e.g. Yasuda, [0065]) and the use of carbon materials as LaB6 coatings was known in art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, 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, Yasuda teaches an emitter comprising:
first and second heaters (see PG heaters, fig 1: 103a,b) generating heat by energization;
an electron source (see cathode, 101) having a side surface (side of 101 at the tip end (towards top of page)) and comprising a first material (see LaB6, [0032]) emitting an electron by being heated by the first and second heaters (see [0063]); and
an intermediate member (see rhenium cover, 102) interposed between the electron source, and the first and second heaters (see figs 1,3), the intermediate member comprising a second material lower in thermal conductivity than the first material (natural property of rhenium);
wherein the intermediate member (see 102) covers the side surface of the electron source in its entirety without having a cut at a circumferential part (see figs 1,3; see also unitary part when LaB6 is depleted in fig 4).
Yasuda may fail to explicitly disclose wherein the electrical resistivity of the intermediate member is 1 to 100 μΩm.
However, Yasuda teaches different materials may be used as the cover material (see e.g. Yasuda, [0065]) and the use of carbon materials as LaB6 coatings was known in art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, 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 Yasuda 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 Yasuda 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 Yasuda 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 Yasuda and Futamoto, as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Yasuda (JP2017201609A) [hereinafter Yasuda II].
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Yasuda and Futamoto may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Yasuda II, for similar reasons as claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Morishita et al. (WO2018016286A1) (US 20190221399 A1 will be used as an English language equivalent for the remainder of this action) [hereinafter Morishita II].
Regarding claim 14, Yasuda may fail to explicitly disclose wherein the electron source has a polygonal cross-section and a plurality of side surfaces, and the intermediate member covers all of the plurality of side surfaces. However, Morishita II teaches using different shaped LaB6 electron sources, including a source that has a polygonal cross-section and a plurality of side surfaces (see quadrangular prism shape, e.g. Morishita II, [0027]), and the intermediate member covers all of the plurality of side surfaces (see e.g. fig 3b), which enables the ability to reduce undesirable side electron emission by provide (100) crystal faces on the four side faces (see [0029]). 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 Morishita II in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to further reduce undesirable electron emission patterns, in the manner taught by Morishita II.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teaching of Yasuda and Morishita II teaches the polygonal cross-section is a substantially square, a substantially rectangle (see quadrangular prism, Morishita II, [0027]), a substantially rhombus, a substantially parallelogram, a substantially triangle, or a substantially regular hexagon.
Regarding claim 16, Yasuda may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Morishita II, for similar reasons as claim 14 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Yasuda and Morishita II teaches the electron source has a columnar portion having four side surfaces, and the intermediate member covers all of the four side surfaces (see quadrangular prism, Morishita II, [0027], fig 1b; see also Yasuda, fig 1).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda and Futamoto, as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Morishita et al. (WO2018016286A1) (US 20190221399 A1 will be used as an English language equivalent for the remainder of this action) [hereinafter Morishita II].
Regarding claim 17, the combined teaching of Yasuda and Futamoto may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Morishita II, for similar reasons as claim 14 above.
Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 19, the combined teaching of Yasuda and Futamoto may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Morishita II, for similar reasons as claim 16 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 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