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 .
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (WO 2014/172932 A1; hereinafter Xu) in view of Dyke et al. (US 3179832; hereinafter Dyke).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a system comprising: an X-ray source (title) including: an anode (11); and one or more field emitter arrays (figs. 1-2a:2/3), including: a gate (3); an emitter (2); a circuit configured to control the one or more field emitter arrays and apply a voltage between the gate and the emitter (fig. 1b; pars. 10 and 63-64), wherein the voltage comprises a waveform having a duty cycle greater than about 5% (pp. 4:31-5:1; duty cycle is 20% - 80%), the waveform configured to turn the X-ray source on and off that may prevent formation of a continuous stream of ions between the anode and the one or more field emitter arrays (pp. 4:31-5:1; due to the duty cycle being 20% - 80%).
However, Xu fails to disclose wherein the waveform is configured to prevent formation of a continuous stream of ions between the anode and the one or more field emitter arrays.
Dyke teaches wherein the waveform is configured to prevent formation of a continuous stream of ions between the anode and the one or more field emitter arrays (col. 2:7-14; title).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Xu with the teaching of Dyke, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for reducing surface migration (Dyke: col. 2:5-6), which will reduce material loss.
Regarding claim 2, Dyke teaches wherein the waveform has a pulse width shorter than a transit time of an ion between the anode and the one or more field emitters (col. 2:7-14; title).
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Dyke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2003/0142790; hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 3, Xu as modified above suggests claim 1. Xu further discloses wherein the voltage is applied between the gate and emitter of each of the one or more field emitter arrays (fig. 1b), while maintaining a duty cycle greater than 5% for each of the one or more field emitter arrays (pp. 4:31-5:1; duty cycle is 20% - 80%). Dyke further teaches wherein a voltage has a pulse width shorter than a transit time of an ion between the anode and the one or more field emitters (col. 2:7-14; title).
However, Xu fails to disclose wherein the circuit is configured to vary the voltage to alternate which of the one or more field emitter arrays are configured to emit electrons.
Zhou teaches wherein the circuit is configured to vary the voltage to alternate which of the one or more field emitter arrays are configured to emit electrons for each of the one or more field emitter arrays (par. 101).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Xu with the teaching of Zhou, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for easier control (Zhou: par. 25).
Regarding claim 11, Xu as modified above suggests claim 1. Xu further discloses wherein the voltage is applied between the gate and emitter of each of the one or more field emitter arrays (fig. 1b), while maintaining a duty cycle greater than 5% for each of the one or more field emitter arrays (pp. 4:31-5:1; duty cycle is 20% - 80%).
However, Xu fails to disclose wherein the circuit is configured to vary the voltage to alternate which of the one or more field emitter arrays are configured to emit electrons, wherein the voltage has a pulse width longer than a transit time of an ion between the anode and the one or more field emitter arrays.
Zhou teaches wherein the circuit is configured to vary the voltage to alternate which of the one or more field emitter arrays are configured to emit electrons for each of the one or more field emitter arrays (par. 101). Dyke teaches wherein a voltage has a pulse width longer than a transit time of an ion between the anode and the one or more field emitters (title and col. 2:7-14; since a little material will be carried from the anode to the cathode, due to some ions having shorter transit times relative to the longer pulse width).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Xu with the teaching of Zhou, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for easier control (Zhou: par. 25).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Xu with the longer transit time in light of Dyke’s teaching, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Dyke: ion transit time), discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for setting the pulse width to reduce as much surface migration as possible (Dyke: col. 2:5-6), although there may be some material loss due to some ions having shorter transit times instead.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Dyke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zou et al. (US 2009/0185660; hereinafter Zou).
Regarding claim 4, Xu as modified above suggests claim 1.
However, Xu fails to disclose a field emitter array protection configured to: shield the field emitter array from back-bombarding ions emerging from the anode; and deflect an electron beam from impacting a position within line of sight from the anode to the field emitter array.
Zou teaches a field emitter array protection configured to: shield the field emitter array from back-bombarding ions emerging from the anode; and deflect an electron beam from impacting a position within line of sight from the anode to the field emitter array (pars. 34 and 38).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Xu with the teaching of Zou, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for reducing damage (par. 34).
Regarding claim 5, Zou teaches wherein the field emitter array protection is a conductor (pars. 36-37).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Dyke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iversen (EP 30453).
Xu as modified above suggests claim 1.
However, Xu fails to disclose one or more pairs of conductors configured to deflect an electron beam, wherein the electron beam is deflected by applying an electrostatic force to the one or more pairs of conductors, and wherein the one or more pairs of conductors are of opposite voltage polarity and are configured to cause an impact of electrons on the anode out of line of sight of the emitter.
Iversen teaches one or more pairs of conductors configured to deflect an electron beam, wherein the electron beam is deflected by applying an electrostatic force to the one or more pairs of conductors, and wherein the one or more pairs of conductors are of opposite voltage polarity and are configured to cause an impact of electrons on the anode out of line of sight of the emitter (p. 4:5-19; fig. 1).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Xu with the teaching of Iversen, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for improved heat absorption capacity and efficiency (Iversen: p. 1:1-25).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Dyke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meiler et al. (US 2017/0318652; hereinafter Meiler).
Regarding claim 7, Xu as modified above suggests claim 1.
However, Xu fails to disclose one or more magnets located inside or outside of the X-ray tube and configured to apply a magnetic force, wherein the one or more magnets are configured to deflect an electron beam by the magnetic force and cause an impact of electrons on the anode out of line of sight of the field emitter array.
Meiler teaches one or more magnets located inside or outside of the X-ray tube and configured to apply a magnetic force, wherein the one or more magnets are configured to deflect an electron beam by the magnetic force and cause an impact of electrons on the anode out of line of sight of the field emitter array (pars. 99-100 and figs. 10a-c).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Xu with the teaching of Meiler, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for more control (Meiler: par. 9).
Regarding claim 8, Meiler teaches wherein the one or more magnets are permanent magnets or electromagnets (par. 41; figs. 13a-b).
Regarding claim 10, Meiler teaches wherein the one or more field emitter arrays are configured to achieve a desired electron focal spot size after manipulation from an electrostatic force or a magnetic force out of line of sight of the field emitter array (pars. 98-100, 160, and 167-168).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Dyke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iversen and Kautz et al. (US 2012/0128122; hereinafter Kautz).
Xu as modified above suggests claim 1.
However, Xu fails to disclose a plurality of electrostatic electrodes configured to apply an electrostatic force; and an electromagnet configured to apply a magnetic force, wherein the electrostatic electrodes and the electromagnet are configured to deflect an electron beam by a combination of the electrostatic force and the magnetic force and cause an impact of the electrons on the anode out of line of sight of the emitter.
Iversen teaches a plurality of electrostatic electrodes configured to apply an electrostatic force; wherein the electrostatic electrodes are configured to deflect an electron beam by a combination of the electrostatic force and cause an impact of the electrons on the anode out of line of sight of the emitter (p. 4:5-19; fig. 1). Kautz teaches an electromagnet configured to apply a magnetic force, wherein the electrostatic electrodes and the electromagnet are configured to deflect an electron beam by a combination of the electrostatic force and the magnetic force (abstract).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Xu the teaching of Iversen, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for improved heat absorption capacity and efficiency (Iversen: p. 1:1-25).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Xu with the teaching of Kautz, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for more samples (Kautz: pars. 2-5).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Dyke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huber et al. (US 2005/0265520; hereinafter Huber).
Xu as modified above suggests claim 1. Xu further discloses wherein the one or more field emitter arrays (2) operate with more than one on at a time (fig. 1b) providing one or more focal spot sizes (on 1) which are configured for emitting X-rays (from 1).
However, Xu fails to disclose discrete focal spot sizes.
Huber teaches discrete focal spot sizes (pars. 24 and 28).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Xu with the teaching of Huber, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for better focusing (Huber: par. 4).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Dyke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuura (US 2022/0285121).
Xu as modified above suggests claim 1.
However, Xu fails to disclose a transient voltage suppressor in parallel with the gate and the emitter contacts of the X-ray source.
Matsuura teaches a transient voltage suppressor in parallel with the gate and the emitter contacts of the X-ray source (par. 49).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Xu with the teaching of Matsuura, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for more control (Matsuura: par. 49).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Dyke, applicant argues that Dyke fails to teach waveforms. The Examiner disagrees. Dyke teaches waveforms (col. 6:14; square wave pulse). Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chih-Cheng Kao whose telephone number is (571)272-2492. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
/Chih-Cheng Kao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights