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 1, 8, 14, 18-19, and 32-35 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 1, second to last line, “the anode body”: replacing “the” with --an--), (claim 8, “having an anode body, wherein the anode body”: replacing “an” with --the--), (claim 8, line 2, “wherein the anode body, includes”: deleting the comma), (claim 8, line 2, “made of coper and target element”: inserting a comma after “copper” and inserting --the -- before “target element”), (claim 19, line 8, “the at least one deflection device”: deleting “the”), (claim 19, third to last line, “the at least one catching device”: in the 5th to last line of claim 19, in the phrase “a catching device”, replacing the word “a” with --at least one--), (claim 19, second to last line, “the anode body”: replacing “the” with --an--), (claim 19, last line: replacing “carrier” with --target--), (claim 32, line 5: deleting “ and/or a or the X-ray tube”), (claim 32, line 6, “controlling, a”: deleting the comma), (claim 32, line 7, “target element, in an axis”: deleting the comma), (claim 32, line 8, “reducing, a generation”: deleting the comma), (claim 32, second to last line, “of a or the electron”: deleting “a or “), (claim 34, line 5, “a or the X-ray tube”: deleting “a or “), (claim 34, line 6, “controlling, a”: deleting the comma), (claim 34, line 7, “target element, in an axis”: deleting the comma), (claim 34, line 8, “reducing, a generation”: deleting the comma), (claim 34, second to last line, “of a or the electron”: deleting “a or “), (claim 35, line 5: deleting “ and/or a or the X-ray tube”), (claim 35, line 6, “controlling, a”: deleting the comma), (claim 35, line 7, “target element, in an axis”: deleting the comma), (claim 35, line 8, “reducing, a generation”: deleting the comma), and (claim 35, second to last line, “of a or the electron”: deleting “a or “).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 32 and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966). See also MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claims 32 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 32 and 34-35 provide for the use of an apparatus, system, or method, but since the claims do not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
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, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Behling (US 2010/0172475).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Behling discloses X-ray source (fig. 1) with a corresponding method, having an electron source (10) for providing electrons in the form of an electron beam and a target element (50) is able to be impinged upon with the electrons of the electron beam of the electron source, and at least one deflection device (40) through which the electron beam can be deflected from a direction of propagation generated by the electron source (10), wherein the at least one deflection device (40) is configured to deflect the electron beam at least intermittently (fig. 5; par. 50) such that the electron beam is not incident on the target element (at 54), wherein the at least one deflection device (40) is configured to deflect the electron beam at least intermittently such that the latter (20) passes radially outside (at 53) the target element (at 54), wherein at least one catching device (53) for the electron beam (20) is provided outside the target element (54), wherein the at least one catching device (53) extends at least partially along an outer circumference of the target element (54) and/or of the anode body and is thermally coupled to the target element and/or the anode body (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, Behling discloses wherein the at least one deflection device has a deflection stage (40) or a plurality of deflection stages.
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) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behling as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Behling (US 2011/0135066; hereinafter Behling ‘066).
Regarding claim 8, Behling discloses claim 1. Behling further discloses having an anode body (50), and target element (51) is preferably arranged on the anode body (50).
However, Behling fails to disclose wherein the anode body includes copper or is made of copper.
Behling ‘066 teaches having wherein the anode body includes copper or is made of copper (par. 2).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Behling with the teaching of Behling ‘066, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for using materials for higher powered sources (Behling ‘066: par. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Behling discloses claim 1.
However, Behling fails to disclose a closed tube.
Behling ‘066 teaches a closed tube (par. 2).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Behling with the teaching of Behling ’066, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for efficiency and configuring for higher powered sources (Behling ‘066: par. 2).
Claim(s) 32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behling as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Albert (US 4260885).
Behling discloses claims 1 and 19.
However, Behling fails to disclose use of the x-ray tube for at least one of the following elements: a) providing different types of X-radiation which differ from one another, in terms of their intensity and/or their spectrum, providing at least two different types of X-radiation sequentially in time and/or alternatingly, b) optimizing the X-ray source and/or a or the X-ray tube for a specifiable application, in the area of X-ray fluorescence analysis, c) carrying out X-ray fluorescence analysis, d) controlling, a thermal load of the target element, in an axis region, e) increasing a service life or durability of the target element, for precise applications, f) reducing, a generation of X-radiation, g) making individual use of at least one region of the target element, h) compensating for stray fields or interference fields, i) smearing the electrons or the electron beam on the target element, j) evaluating a beam position of a or the electron beam, carrying out a diagnosis.
Albert teaches use of the x-ray tube for at least one of the following elements: a) providing different types of X-radiation which differ from one another, in terms of their intensity and/or their spectrum, providing at least two different types of X-radiation sequentially in time and/or alternatingly, b) optimizing the X-ray source and/or a or the X-ray tube for a specifiable application, in the area of X-ray fluorescence analysis, c) carrying out X-ray fluorescence analysis, d) controlling, a thermal load of the target element, in an axis region, e) increasing a service life or durability of the target element, for precise applications, f) reducing, a generation of X-radiation, g) making individual use of at least one region of the target element, h) compensating for stray fields or interference fields, i) smearing the electrons or the electron beam on the target element, j) evaluating a beam position of a or the electron beam, carrying out a diagnosis (abstract).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Behling with the teaching of Albert, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for more analysis (Albert: abstract).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behling and Behling ‘066 as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 2014/0086388; hereinafter Yamada).
Behling as modified above suggests claim 18.
However, Behling fails to disclose wherein the tube is a glass tube.
Yamada teaches wherein the tube is a glass tube (par. 32).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Behling with the teaching of Yamada, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for cheaper and durable materials.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behling and Behling ‘066 as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Albert.
Behling as modified above suggests claim 18.
However, Behling fails to disclose use of the x-ray tube for at least one of the following elements: a) providing different types of X-radiation which differ from one another, in terms of their intensity and/or their spectrum, providing at least two different types of X-radiation sequentially in time and/or alternatingly, b) optimizing the X-ray source and/or a or the X-ray tube for a specifiable application, in the area of X-ray fluorescence analysis, c) carrying out X-ray fluorescence analysis, d) controlling, a thermal load of the target element, in an axis region, e) increasing a service life or durability of the target element, for precise applications, f) reducing, a generation of X-radiation, g) making individual use of at least one region of the target element, h) compensating for stray fields or interference fields, i) smearing the electrons or the electron beam on the target element, j) evaluating a beam position of a or the electron beam, carrying out a diagnosis.
Albert teaches use of the x-ray tube for at least one of the following elements: a) providing different types of X-radiation which differ from one another, in terms of their intensity and/or their spectrum, providing at least two different types of X-radiation sequentially in time and/or alternatingly, b) optimizing the X-ray source and/or a or the X-ray tube for a specifiable application, in the area of X-ray fluorescence analysis, c) carrying out X-ray fluorescence analysis, d) controlling, a thermal load of the target element, in an axis region, e) increasing a service life or durability of the target element, for precise applications, f) reducing, a generation of X-radiation, g) making individual use of at least one region of the target element, h) compensating for stray fields or interference fields, i) smearing the electrons or the electron beam on the target element, j) evaluating a beam position of a or the electron beam, carrying out a diagnosis (abstract).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Behling with the teaching of Albert, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for more analysis (Albert: abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 30, 2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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
Prosecution Insights