DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are pending.
Claim 7 remains cancelled.
Claims 1 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages , filed 09/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 and 10 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new combination of prior art.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 3 of the claims, “gratin g” should be “grating.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohde (US 8155270 B2) in view of van Kessel (US 20060072701 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Rodhe discloses a combined X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis device (Fig. 1), comprising:
a ray emission channel (20, 10), wherein the ray emission channel comprises a ray source (20);
an energy dispersive XRF (EDXRF) detection channel (45), wherein the EDXRF detection channel comprises an EDXRF detector (40), and the EDXRF detector is configured to detect fluorescence at different energies within a certain energy range in fluorescence emitted by an object (30) irradiated by a ray from the ray emission channel (Col. 2, lines 24-29); and
a wavelength dispersive XRF (WDXRF) detection channel (65), wherein the WDXRF detection channel comprises a WDXRF detector (70), and the WDXRF detector is configured to detect fluorescence at one or more specific wavelengths in the fluorescence emitted by the object irradiated by the ray from the ray emission channel (Col. 4, lines 50-52).
Rodhe fails to teach wherein the WDXRF detection channel comprises a grating type WDXRF detection channel, comprising:
a collimating device configured to collimate the fluorescence from the object, wherein the collimated fluorescence is incident onto a grating,
the grating configured to irradiate fluorescence of different wavelengths in the fluorescence incident onto the grating toward different directions,
a diaphragm configured for passing of fluorescence irradiated toward a specific direction, and
a light detector configured to receive the fluorescence passing the diaphragm.
Van Kessel teaches the details of:
a collimating device configured to collimate the fluorescence from the object [0030], wherein the collimated fluorescence is incident onto a grating (Fig. 2, 235),
the grating configured to irradiate fluorescence of different wavelengths in the fluorescence incident onto the grating toward different directions (235; [0030]; [0038]; [0045]: “The particular grating is chosen to diffract photons at the particular X-ray line energy at the correct angle to the detector and exclude adjacent and unwanted X-ray lines.”),
a diaphragm configured for passing of fluorescence irradiated toward a specific direction [0044]: “A detector shield 231 is positioned adjacent the flow tube 230 for shielding a detector 240. The shield 231 may be comprised of sheet metal or like material having suitable stopping power for the energy range of the source and is shaped to exclude X-ray scatter for all but the desired path. It is noted that this is understood to include apertures and slits at multiple points in the beam path.”), and
a light detector configured to receive the fluorescence passing the diaphragm (240).
Rodhe and van Kessel are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of X-ray spectroscopy devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rodhe to incorporate the teachings of van Kessel and provide a grating type WDXRF detection channel comprising a collimating device and diaphragm for passing fluorescence irradiated toward a specific direction. One would be motivated to make such a modification on the basis of enhancing spectral resolution and enable fine control of directional selectivity. The addition of a collimator can better define the incident and diffracted beams, while the grating plus diaphragm setup reduces mechanical complexity.
Regarding Claim 2: Rodhe in view of Van Kessel discloses the XRF analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the ray emission channel is arranged in a first optical channel facing the object (Rodhe: 20), and the EDXRF detection channel and the WDXRF detection channel are respectively arranged in different channels of a plurality of second optical channels arranged obliquely relative to the object (Rodhe: EDXRF 45 and WDXRF 65).
Regarding Claim 3: Rodhe in view of Van Kessel discloses the XRF analysis device according to claim 2, wherein the ray emission channel is arranged in the first optical channel (Rodhe: 20), and the EDXRF detection channel (Rodhe: 45) and the WDXRF detection channel (Rodhe: 65) are respectively arranged in different second optical channels (Rodhe: Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 4: Rodhe in view of Van Kessel discloses the XRF analysis device according to claim 2, wherein the ray emission channel (Rodhe: 20) is arranged in one of the plurality of second optical channels, and the EDXRF detection channel (Rodhe: 45) and the WDXRF detection channel (Rodhe: 65) are respectively arranged in different optical channels of the first optical channel and other second optical channels of the plurality of second optical channels (Rodhe: Col. 4, lines 44-46 and Col. 5, lines 21-23 disclose optimizing the location of WDXRF channel and sample position. Each channel can be positioned relatively to the sample as described in claim 4.)
Regarding Claim 10: Rodhe in view of Van Kessel discloses the XRF analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the ray from the ray emission channel is monochromatic light or polychromatic light (Rodhe: Col. 1, lines 29-30).
Claims 5-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodhe in view of Zhang (US 20230236143 A1).
Regarding Claim 5: Rodhe in view of Van Kessel discloses the XRF analysis device according to claim 1, but Rodhe and Van Kessel fail to teach wherein the ray emission channel comprises a plurality of ray sources, and two or more of the plurality of ray sources are configured to generate corresponding rays to irradiate the object.
However, Zhang teaches system for X-ray analysis comprising a plurality of X-ray sources (Zhang: Fig. 1, 1101-1, 1101-2, 1101-n; [0048]).
Rodhe, Van Kessel, and Zhang are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of X-ray analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rodhe in view of Van Kessel to incorporate the teachings of Zhang and provide more than one X-ray source. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to independently and simultaneously generate corresponding rays. Doing so would also enable an enhancement of a detected signal and a reduction in measurement time, thus increasing a throughput.
Regarding Claim 6: Rodhe in view of Van Kessel discloses the XRF analysis device according to claim 1, but Rodhe and Van Kessel fail to teach comprising a plurality of the ray emission channels, and two or more of the ray emission channels are configured to emit corresponding rays to irradiate the object.
However, Zhang teaches system for X-ray analysis comprising a plurality of X-ray channels (Zhang: Fig. 1, 1101-1, 1101-2, 1101-n; [0048]).
Rodhe, Van Kessel, and Zhang are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of X-ray analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rodhe in view of Van Kessel to incorporate the teachings of Zhang and provide more than one X-ray channel. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to independently and simultaneously generate corresponding rays. Doing so would also enable an enhancement of a detected signal and a reduction in measurement time, thus increasing a throughput.
Regarding Claim 8: Rodhe in view Van Kessel, in further view of Zhang discloses the XRF analysis device according to claim 5, wherein the plurality of ray sources in the ray emission channel are configured to respectively emit rays to irradiate a same target region of the object (Zhang: Fig. 1; [0059]: “The controller 170 may control the ray source 110 to select at least two (for example, three or more) of the ray generating devices 1101-1, 1101-2 . . . 1101-n to be switched on simultaneously, and the rays emitted by the switched-on ray generating devices may be incident onto the target region of the sample S.”).
Regarding Claim 9: Rodhe in view Van Kessel, in further view of Zhang discloses the XRF analysis device according to claim 6, wherein the plurality of ray emission channels are configured to respectively emit rays to irradiate a same target region of the object (Zhang: Fig. 1; [0059]: “The controller 170 may control the ray source 110 to select at least two (for example, three or more) of the ray generating devices 1101-1, 1101-2 . . . 1101-n to be switched on simultaneously, and the rays emitted by the switched-on ray generating devices may be incident onto the target region of the sample S.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA DOWNING whose telephone number is (703)756-1840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 on (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.
/MIYA DOWNING/Examiner, Art Unit 2884 /DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884