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 § 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (EP 4024435; hereinafter Lee).
Lee discloses a system comprising: an X-ray source (par. 9) including: one or more field emitter arrays (110), including: a gate (130); and an emitter (110); and a circuit configured to control the one or more field emitter arrays and apply a voltage between the gate and the emitter (pars. 22 and 31).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Price et al. (US 2004/0022360; hereinafter Price).
Lee discloses claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the X-ray source further includes: an anode (120).
However, Lee fails to disclose wherein the voltage comprises a waveform having a duty cycle greater than about 5% and a pulse width shorter than a transit time of an ion between the anode and the one or more field emitter arrays.
Price teaches wherein the voltage comprises a waveform having a duty cycle greater than about 5% (pars. 25-26) and a pulse width necessarily shorter than a transit time of an ion between the anode and the one or more field emitter arrays (that hypothetically takes a longer time).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lee with the teaching of Price, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for efficiency (Price: par. 26).
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Price and Zhou et al. (US 2003/0142790; hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the X-ray source further includes: an anode (120), wherein the voltage is applied between the gate and emitter of each of the one or more field emitter arrays (pars. 22 and 31).
However, Lee 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 while maintaining a duty cycle greater than 5% for each of the one or more field emitter arrays, and wherein the voltage has a pulse width shorter 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). Price teaches maintaining a duty cycle greater than 5% (pars. 25-26) and wherein the voltage has pulse width necessarily shorter than a transit time of an ion between the anode and the one or more field emitter arrays (that hypothetically takes a longer time).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lee 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 Lee with the teaching of Price, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for efficiency (Price: par. 26).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the X-ray source further includes: an anode (120), wherein the voltage is applied between the gate and emitter of each of the one or more field emitter arrays (pars. 22 and 31).
However, Lee 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 while maintaining a duty cycle greater than 5% for each of the one or more field emitter arrays, and 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). Price teaches maintaining a duty cycle greater than 5% (pars. 25-26) and wherein the voltage has pulse width necessarily longer than a transit time of an ion between the anode and the one or more field emitter arrays (that hypothetically takes a shorter time).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lee 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 Lee with the teaching of Price, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for efficiency (Price: par. 26).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zou et al. (US 2009/0185660; hereinafter Zou).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the X-ray source further includes: an anode (120).
However, Lee 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 Lee 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 Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iversen (EP 30453).
Lee discloses claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the X-ray source further includes: an anode (120).
However, Lee 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 Lee 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 Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meiler et al. (US 2017/0318652; hereinafter Meiler).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the X-ray source further includes: an anode (120).
However, Lee 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 Lee 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 Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iversen and Kautz et al. (US 2012/0128122; hereinafter Kautz).
Lee discloses claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the X-ray source further includes: an anode (120).
However, Lee 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 Lee 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).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lee 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 Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huber et al. (US 2005/0265520; hereinafter Huber).
Lee discloses claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the one or more field emitter arrays (110) operate with more than one on at a time providing one or more focal spot sizes (with 140) which are configured for emitting X-rays (from 120).
However, Lee 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 Lee 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 Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuura (US 2022/0285121).
Lee discloses claim 1.
However, Lee 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 Lee with the teaching of Matsuura, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for more control (Matsuura: par. 49).
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, 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, 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