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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-2, 4, and 19 in the reply filed on February 24, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 3, 5-18, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitamura et al. (JP 2011-044343 A; hereinafter Mitamura).
Regarding claim 1, Mitamura discloses an x-ray device (par. 2) comprising: an access port (par. 28: a lid portion 404 that is connected to the container main body 401 via a hinge 402 and opens and closes an upper opening of the container main body 401) configured to receive a cathode (20) within an interior volume of an enclosure (40, 401) of the x-ray device; a first vacuum seal (82) configured to seal a cover over the access port; and a second seal (83) configured to seal the cover over the access port, the second seal (83) necessarily maintained between the first vacuum seal (82) and the interior volume of the enclosure (of 401) during removal of the first vacuum seal (82), since destructive removal of the first vacuum seal keeps the function of the second seal in place.
Regarding claim 2, Mitamura discloses wherein the first vacuum seal (82) is formed on a first path around the access port, and the second seal (83) comprises a physical overlap between the cover (e.g., 411) and the enclosure (of 401) on a second path around the access port, the second path (with 83) disposed between the first path (82) and a perimeter of the access port (e.g., the inner perimeter of 70).
Regarding claim 4, Mitamura discloses wherein the second seal comprises a protrusion (due to the shape of 83) configured to mate with a channel (with 86) formed within one or more of the outer surface of the enclosure and the inner surface of the cover (with 81).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shaw (DE 1600416 A1).
Shaw discloses a device (title) comprising: an access port (any opening of the lid); a first vacuum seal (35) configured to seal a cover over the access port; and a second seal (34) configured to seal the cover over the access port, the second seal (34) between the first vacuum seal (35) and the interior volume of the first vacuum seal.
Note that recitations (i.e., an “x-ray device”; “configured to receive a cathode within an interior volume of an enclosure of the x-ray device”; “the second seal maintained between the first vacuum seal and the interior volume of the enclosure during removal of the first vacuum seal”) with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from prior art if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greenland (US 2022/0406557).
Regarding claim 1, Greenland discloses an x-ray device (title and fig. 3) comprising: an access port (at 34) configured to receive a cathode (with 12e) within an interior volume of an enclosure (13) of the x-ray device; a first vacuum seal (33 adjacent to 11) configured to seal a cover (11) over the access port; and a second seal (33 adjacent to 13) configured to seal the cover (11) over the access port, the second seal (33 adjacent 13) necessarily maintained between the first vacuum seal (33 adjacent 11) and the interior volume of the enclosure (13) during removal of the first vacuum seal (33 adjacent 11), since destructive removal of the first vacuum seal keeps the function of the second seal in place.
Regarding claim 2, Greenland discloses wherein the first vacuum seal (33 adjacent 11) is formed on a first path around the access port, and the second seal (33 adjacent 13) comprises a physical overlap between the cover (11) and the enclosure (13) on a second path around the access port, the second path (with 33 adjacent 13) disposed between the first path (with 33 adjacent 11) and a perimeter of the access port (with 13).
Regarding claim 19, Greenland discloses an x-ray device (title), comprising: an x-ray source (fig. 3); an enclosure (13) for maintaining a vacuum (par. 22) around the x-ray source, the enclosure including: an access port (at 34) for accessing an interior volume of the enclosure (13); a first vacuum seal (33 adjacent 11) between a cover (11) and the access port (with 13) for vacuum sealing the access port; and a second seal (33 adjacent 13) necessarily protecting the interior volume from contamination during removal of the first vacuum seal (33 adjacent 11).
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) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers et al. (US 2012/0121065; hereinafter Rogers) in view of Py et al. (US 2015/0225094; hereinafter Py).
Rogers discloses an x-ray device (title), comprising: an x-ray source (title); an enclosure (67) for maintaining a vacuum (via 64 at least) around the x-ray source, the enclosure including: an access port (at 59) for accessing an interior volume of the enclosure (to put cathode 62 into 67); a seal between a cover (59) and the access port (of 67) for sealing the access port (for vacuum pumping with 64).
However, Rogers fails to disclose a first seal between a cover and the access port for sealing the access port; and a second seal for protecting the interior volume from contamination during removal of the first seal.
Py teaches a first seal (126) between a cover (136) and the access port (of 114) for sealing the access port; and a second seal (118) necessarily protecting the interior volume from contamination during removal of the first seal (126).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Rogers with the teaching of Py, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for avoiding compromises (Py: par. 5).
Furthermore, since the Examiner finds that the prior art (e.g., Rogers) contained a “base” upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” (with sealing), and since the Examiner finds that the prior art (e.g., Py) contained a “comparable” system that has been improved as recited in the claimed invention (with sealing), the Examiner thus finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique to the “base” and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, such a claimed combination would have been obvious.
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