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, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Radiologi AKT GES (DE 5523763 C; hereinafter Radiologie).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Radiologie discloses X-ray source (par. 1) with a corresponding method, having an electron source (2) for providing electrons in the form of an electron beam and a target element (1a) is able to be impinged upon with the electrons of the electron beam of the electron source, and at least one deflection device (3/4) through which the electron beam can be deflected from a direction of propagation generated by the electron source (fig. 1), wherein the at least one deflection device is configured to deflect the electron beam, at least intermittent, with a trajectory being incident on the target element, but outside a centre of the target element (fig. 1) or an impact region of the target element on which the electron beam is incident in the case of a direction of propagation without deflection, or wherein the at least one deflection device is configured to deflect the electron beam at least intermittently such that the electron beam is not incident on the target element, wherein the at least one deflection device is configured to deflect the electron beam at least intermittently such that the latter passes radially outside the target element,- wherein at least one catching device for the electron beam is provided outside the target element, wherein the at least one catching device extends at least partially along an outer circumference of the target element and/or of the anode body and is thermally coupled to the target element and/or the anode body.
Regarding claim 14, Radiologie discloses wherein the at least one deflection device has a deflection stage (3-4) 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 Radiologie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Behling (US 2011/0135066).
Regarding claim 8, Radiologie discloses claim 1.
However, Radiologie fails to disclose having an anode body, wherein the anode body, includes copper or is made of copper and target element is preferably arranged on the anode body.
Behling teaches having an anode body, wherein the anode body, includes copper or is made of copper and target element is preferably arranged on the anode body (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 Radiologie with the teaching of Behling, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for generating more radiation with the correct material.
Regarding claim 18, Radiologie discloses claim 1.
However, Radiologie fails to disclose a closed tube.
Behling 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 Radiologie with the teaching of Behling, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for efficiency.
Claim(s) 32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radiologie as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Albert (US 4260885).
Radiologie discloses claims 1 and 19.
However, Radiologie 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 Radiologie 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 Radiologie and Behling as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 2014/0086388; hereinafter Yamada).
Radiologie as modified above suggests claim 18.
However, Radiologie 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 Radiologie 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 Radiologie and Behling as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Albert.
Radiologie as modified above suggests claim 18.
However, Radiologie 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 Radiologie 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 December 9, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Radiolgie fails to disclose wherein the at least one deflection device is configured to deflect the electron beam, at least intermittent, with a trajectory being incident on the target element, but outside a centre of the target element or an impact region of the target element on which the electron beam is incident in the case of a direction of propagation without deflection, or wherein the at least one deflection device is configured to deflect the electron beam at least intermittently such that the electron beam is not incident on the target element, wherein the at least one deflection device is configured to deflect the electron beam at least intermittently such that the latter passes radially outside the target element,- wherein at least one catching device for the electron beam is provided outside the target element, wherein the at least one catching device extends at least partially along an outer circumference of the target element and/or of the anode body and is thermally coupled to the target element and/or the anode body.
The Examiner disagrees. Due to the word “or” in line 9 of claim 1, as well as line 7 of claim 19, the claim recitations after the word “or” can be grammatically grouped together as part of an alternative limitation. With the parentheses added to claim 1 recitations to emphasize the alternative limitations,
Radiologie discloses (wherein the at least one deflection device is configured to deflect the electron beam, at least intermittent, with a trajectory being incident on the target element, but outside a centre of the target element (fig. 1)), or
(an impact region of the target element on which the electron beam is incident in the case of a direction of propagation without deflection, or wherein the at least one deflection device is configured to deflect the electron beam at least intermittently such that the electron beam is not incident on the target element, wherein the at least one deflection device is configured to deflect the electron beam at least intermittently such that the latter passes radially outside the target element,- wherein at least one catching device for the electron beam is provided outside the target element, wherein the at least one catching device extends at least partially along an outer circumference of the target element and/or of the anode body and is thermally coupled to the target element and/or the anode body).
Due to the Examiner’s interpretation of the groupings of the alternative limitations, Radiologie reads on claims 1 and 19 with the first alternative limitation group. Radiologic does not need to read on the second alternative limitation group to apply as prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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, 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