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 8/11/25 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 claim 1 of original claim 6 while removing “a refractory metal and an oxide, a carbide, and a nitride thereof”.
The remarks note that there is insufficient disclosure in Yasuda to select iridium and cerium as the first and second metals. However, it is noted that these possibilities were enumerated by Yasuda, and it would have been obvious to try to select between one of the finite combinations of metals.
Regarding the discussion in the remarks of [0085] in Yasuda, where the remarks conclude La or Ce is being added to Re, it is noted that this if the material melted and alloyed, it would form the precious metal-rare earth compound claimed because Re is a precious metal and La and Ce are rare earths. Alternately, if the material were not to melt and alloy together (note separate regions in figs 7-8: 703), the CeB6 would itself be a rare earth boride.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13 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, 4, 5, 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 Yasuda (JP2017201609A).
Regarding claim 1, Yasuda teaches an emitter comprising:
first and second heaters (see fig 11: 1106) generating heat by energization (see [0077]);
an electron source (see e.g. rhenium wire, 1103) comprising a first material (rhenium) emitting an electron by being heated by the first and second heaters (see [0076]); and
an intermediate member (e.g. carbon, 1105) interposed between the electron source, and the first and second heaters (see fig 11), the intermediate member comprising a second material lower in thermal conductivity than the first material (carbon is lower in thermal conductivity than rhenium), 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 CeB6 if unalloyed and Re-Ce if alloyed, [0085]).
Regarding claim 4, Yasuda teaches the second material is at least one material selected from carbon, boron carbide, boron nitride, and rhenium (see Yasuda, [0077]).
Regarding claim 5, Yasuda teaches the second material is glassy carbon (see Yasuda, [0074,77]).
Regarding claim 7, Yasuda teaches the intermediate member covers a surface of the electron source other than an electron emission surface (see Yasuda, fig 11).
Regarding claim 8, Yasuda teaches a device comprising the emitter according to claim 1 (see Yasuda, fig 11)
Claim(s) 9-10, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yasuda, and as evidenced by SPI (https://www.2spi.com/catalog/documents/Glassy-Vitreous-Carbon-Info.pdf).
Claim 9 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 above. It is unclear if the electrical resistivity of the intermediate member is 1 to 100 μΩm. However, this appears to be a natural property of the material (glassy carbon) (see SPI, 50 Ωμm). However, it has held that when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§2112-2112.02.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Yasuda may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious for similar reasons as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 12, Yasuda teaches the second material is at least one material selected from carbon, boron carbide, boron nitride, and rhenium (see Yasuda, [0077]).
Regarding claim 13, Yasuda teaches the second material is glassy carbon (see Yasuda, [0074,77]).
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) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (JP2017201609A) in view of Tang et al. (US 20220406552 A1) or Yasuda as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 1, Yasuda teaches an emitter comprising:
first and second heaters (see fig 11: 1106) generating heat by energization (see [0077]);
an electron source (see e.g. rhenium wire, 1103) comprising a first material (rhenium) emitting an electron by being heated by the first and second heaters (see [0076]); and
an intermediate member (e.g. carbon, 1105) interposed between the electron source, and the first and second heaters (see fig 11), the intermediate member comprising a second material lower in thermal conductivity than the first material (carbon is lower in thermal conductivity than rhenium), wherein
Yasuda may fail to explicitly disclose the first material is a material selected from a group consisting of a rare earth boride and a precious metal-rare earth alloy.
However, in different embodiments, Yasuda teaches composite electron sources (e.g. fig 7-8) where the first material (see Yasuda, fig 11: 703) comprises boron (see [0007]) and a rare earth metal (see second metal, lanthanum or cerium, [0008]) that at least partially melt together to form a rare earth boride (see [0045]). It is unclear how complete the melting and rhenium alloying is. Nevertheless, the use of rhenium emitters augmented by rare earth borides was known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Tang teaches a system to provide sharpening of an electron emitter tip in a simple manner while enabling good reproducibility for a desired emitter size and shape (see Tang, [0215]) comprising a rhenium portion (see e.g. fig 3: 320, [0035,96]) and a material selected from a group consisting of a rare earth boride (see [0067]). 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 Tang (and/or the teachings of the at least partially melted/alloyed CeB6 in Yasuda) in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to improve operation of the system and enable easier tip sharpening and/or enable good reproducibility for a desired emitter size and shape, in the manner taught by Tang.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Yasuda and Tang 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, Yasuda teaches the tip diameter is in the range of 100μm (see Yasuda, [0088]), which is substantially smaller compared with the body of the gun (see figs 11, 12). Given the requirement that the tip is substantially smaller than the body diameter, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the application was effectively filed to try to utilize a body diameter including wherein the shortest path between the heater and source is 100 μm or more, as a routine skill in the art. Furthermore, although the embodiment does not recite the same structure, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the size and/or proportion as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Yasuda teaches the second material is at least one material selected from carbon, boron carbide, boron nitride, and rhenium (see Yasuda, [0077]).
Regarding claim 5, Yasuda teaches the second material is glassy carbon (see Yasuda, [0074,77]).
Regarding claim 7, Yasuda teaches the intermediate member covers a surface of the electron source other than an electron emission surface (see Yasuda, fig 11).
Regarding claim 8, Yasuda teaches a device comprising the emitter according to claim 1 (see Yasuda, fig 11)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda or Yasuda and Tang, as applied to claim 1 above, and as evidenced by SPI (https://www.2spi.com/catalog/documents/Glassy-Vitreous-Carbon-Info.pdf) and CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 105th Edition.
Regarding claim 3, Yasuda fails 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 (glassy carbon and pyrolytic graphite, respectively) (see SPI, 50 Ωμm, and Handbook, 590 μΩm). However, it has held that when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§2112-2112.02.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (JP2017201609A) and as evidenced by SPI (https://www.2spi.com/catalog/documents/Glassy-Vitreous-Carbon-Info.pdf).
Regarding claim 9, Yasuda teaches an emitter comprising:
first and second heaters (see fig 11: 1106) generating heat by energization (see [0077]);
an electron source (see e.g. rhenium wire, 1103) comprising a first material (rhenium) emitting an electron by being heated by the first and second heaters (see [0076]); and
an intermediate member (e.g. carbon, 1105) interposed between the electron source, and the first and second heaters (see fig 11), the intermediate member comprising a second material lower in thermal conductivity than the first material (carbon is lower in thermal conductivity than rhenium);
It is unclear if the electrical resistivity of the intermediate member is 1 to 100 μΩm. However, this appears to be a natural property of the material (glassy carbon) (see SPI, 50 Ωμm). However, it has held that when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§2112-2112.02.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Yasuda may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious for similar reasons as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 12, Yasuda teaches the second material is at least one material selected from carbon, boron carbide, boron nitride, and rhenium (see Yasuda, [0077]).
Regarding claim 13, Yasuda teaches the second material is glassy carbon (see Yasuda, [0074,77]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda, as applied to claim 9 above, and as further evidenced by CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 105th Edition.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Yasuda may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious for similar reasons as claim 3 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 8:00 am – 5:30 pm M-T, and every other Friday.
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, Robert Kim can be reached on (571) 272 – 2293. 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 2881