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 Objections
Claims 10-11 are objected to because of informalities, which appear to be minor draft errors causing grammatical and/or antecedent basis issues.
As noted in the following format (location of objection: suggestion for correction), the following objections may be overcome by making the corresponding corrections: (claim 10, line 3, “the field emitter array”: inserting --one or more -- before “field emitter”, and replacing “array” with --arrays--), (claim 11, line 5, “a duty cycle”: replacing “a” with --the--), and (claim 11, last line, “and one or more field emitter arrays”: inserting --the -- before “one or more field emitter”).
Any dependent claim of the claim(s) with the noted objections above is also objected to by virtue of its claim dependency. For purposes of examination, the claims have been treated as such with the correction(s). Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the one or more field emitter arrays including an anode must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. This objection may be overcome by amending the claims to have the X-ray source including the anode, not the one or more field emitter arrays including the anode. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the one or more emitter arrays 120 including an anode 110 as described in the specification (par. 32). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. This objection to the drawings may be overcome by deleting “, an anode 110,” as recited in paragraph 32 of the specification. MPEP § 608.02(d). The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claims recite one or more field emitter arrays including an anode (claim 1). Although the application as originally filed enables one to make and/or use an x-ray source (102) including an anode (110), the application as originally filed does not enable one to make and/or use a field emitter array (120) including an anode (110), since the application as originally filed shows the anode (110) as part of the source (102), not the anode (110) as part of the array (120). Furthermore, the claim recites ion behavior between the anode and the one or more field emitter arrays (claim 1). However, if the anode is part of the field emitter array, the ion behavior between part of the emitter array (i.e., the anode) and itself (the entire emitter array), does not seem to even make grammatical or metaphysical sense. In light of these issues, the claims are rejected for enablement problems. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claims to have the X-ray source including the anode, not the one or more field emitter arrays including the anode.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a pulse width selected based on ion behavior. This appears to a broader scope of the concept of pulse width selection based on transit time (claims 2-3 and 11). The written description requirement for a claimed broader generic element (i.e., ion behavior) may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of subgeneric elements. A representative number of subgeneric elements means that the subgeneric elements which are adequately described are representative of the entire broader generic element. When there is substantial variation within the broader generic element (of ion behavior), one must describe a sufficient variety of subgeneric elements to reflect the variation within the broader generic element (of ion behavior). However, Applicant only described transit time as one subgeneric element of ion behavior. One can imagine a number of other possible ion behaviors. Therefore, due to the lack of variety of subgeneric elements for ion behavior in the application, the claims are rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 Lee et al. (EP 4024435; hereinafter Lee) in view of Wilson et al. (US 2003/0002628; hereinafter Wilson), Price et al. (US 2004/0022360; hereinafter Price), and Dyke et al. (US 3179832; hereinafter Dyke).
Regarding claim 1, 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).
However, Lee fails to disclose one or more field emitter arrays including an anode, wherein the voltage comprises a waveform having a duty cycle greater than about 5% and a pulse width selected based on ion behavior between the anode and the one or more field emitters.
Wilson teaches one or more field emitter arrays including an anode (pars. 22-23; figs. 6-7). Price teaches wherein the voltage comprises a waveform having a duty cycle greater than about 5% (pars. 25-26). Dyke teaches a pulse width selected based on ion behavior between the anode and the one or more field emitters (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 Lee with the teaching of Wilson, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for better direction (Wilson: par. 22).
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).
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 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 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 Lee, Wilson, Price, and Dyke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2003/0142790; hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 3, Lee as modified above suggests claim 1. Lee further discloses 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). Dyke 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).
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).
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 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 11, Lee as modified above suggests claim 1. Lee further discloses 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). 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 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).
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 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 Lee, Wilson, Price, and Dyke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zou et al. (US 2009/0185660; hereinafter Zou).
Regarding claim 4, Lee as modified above suggests claim 1.
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, Wilson, Price, and Dyke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iversen (EP 30453).
Lee as modified above suggests claim 1.
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, Wilson, Price, and Dyke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meiler et al. (US 2017/0318652; hereinafter Meiler).
Regarding claim 7, Lee as modified above suggests claim 1.
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, Wilson, Price, and Dyke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iversen and Kautz et al. (US 2012/0128122; hereinafter Kautz).
Lee as modified above suggests claim 1.
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, Wilson, Price, and Dyke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huber et al. (US 2005/0265520; hereinafter Huber).
Lee as modified above suggests 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, Wilson, Price, and Dyke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuura (US 2022/0285121).
Lee as modified above suggests 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).
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.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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