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 and 3-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) An X-ray tube comprising:
an anode;
a cathode comprising an emitter recess;
an electron emitter configured to generate free electrons;
an electron optics comprising an opening; and
a target configured to generate X-rays,
wherein the electron emitter is arranged in the emitter recess,
wherein the electron optics is arranged at the emitter recess such that the electron emitter is accessible in the opening,
wherein the opening widens in an acceleration direction of the free electrons, and
wherein a center of a focal spot of an electron beam comprising free electrons configured to strike the target deviates from a central optical axis of the X-ray tube by at most 1 mm.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
8. (Proposed Amendments) The X-ray tube according to claim 1, wherein the cathode and the electron optics are at an electric potential between -4 kV and [[-70kV]] -70 kV, and the anode is at an electric potential of [[oV]] 0 V.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
20. (Proposed Amendments) The X-ray tube according to claim 13, wherein the electron optics further comprises a focal cylinder, following the opening of the electron optics in an acceleration direction of the free electrons.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
21. (Proposed Amendments) The X-ray tube according to claim 13, wherein the cathode and the electron optics are at an electric potential between -4 kV and -70 kV, and the anode is at an electric potential of 0 V [[o V]].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 21 fails to set forth additional structural limitation because an electrical potential does not alter a structure of the electron optics and the anode. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13, 14, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanasaki et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,741,523 B1).
With respect to claim 13, Kanasaki et al. disclosed An X-ray tube comprising:
an anode (60);
a cathode comprising an emitter recess (52) with an emitter recess width (L2b = 3.0 mm);
an electron emitter (11) configured to generate free electrons; and
an electron optics (16) comprising an opening (16a) and a first height (D1b = 4.1 mm),
wherein the electron emitter is arranged in the emitter recess ,
wherein the electron optics is arranged at the emitter recess such that the electron emitter is accessible in the opening, and
wherein a first ratio (=1.37) of the first height (D1b = 4.1 mm) of the electron optics and the emitter recess width (L2b = 3.0 mm) is between 0.3 and 20.
With respect to claim 14, Kanasaki et al. disclosed the X-ray tube according to claim 13,
wherein the electron optics comprises a first width (L1b = 7.5 mm), and
wherein a second ratio (=2.5) of the first width (L1b = 7.5 mm) of the electron optics and the emitter recess width (L2b = 3.0 mm) is at most 16.
With respect to claim 21, Kanasaki et al. disclosed the X-ray tube according to claim 13. Since claim 21 fails to set forth an additional structural limitation, claim 21 is rejected with claim 13.
With respect to claim 17, Kanasaki et al. disclosed an X-ray tube comprising:
an anode (60);
a cathode comprising an emitter recess (52) with an emitter recess width (L2b = 3.0 mm);
an electron emitter (11) for generating free electrons; and
an electron optics (16) comprising an opening (16a), a first height (D1b = 4.1 mm), and a first width (L1b = 7.5 mm),
wherein the electron emitter is arranged in the emitter recess,
wherein the electron optics is arranged at the emitter recess such that the electron emitter is accessible in the opening,
wherein the first height (D1b = 4.1 mm) is between 1 mm and 10 mm, inclusive,
wherein the first width (L1b = 7.5 mm) is between 3 mm and 8 mm, inclusive, and
wherein the emitter recess width (L2b = 3.0 mm) is between 0.5 mm and 3 mm, inclusive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 16, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claims 1 and 3-12, Kanasaki et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,741,523 B2) disclosed an X-ray tube comprising:
an anode (60);
a cathode comprising an emitter recess (52) with an emitter recess width (L2b = 3.0 mm);
an electron emitter (11) configured to generate free electrons; and
an electron optics (16) comprising an opening (16a) and a first height (D1b = 4.1 mm),
a target (62) configured to generate X-rays,
wherein the electron emitter is arranged in the emitter recess of the cathode,
wherein the electron optics is arranged at the emitter recess such that the electron emitter is accessible in the opening, and
wherein the opening widens in an acceleration direction of the free electrons (column 11, lines 16-54).
However, the prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggested that the X-ray tube further comprising:
an electron optics comprising an opening,
wherein a center of a focal spot of an electron beam comprising free electrons configured to strike the target deviates from a central optical axis of the X-ray tube by at most 1 mm.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 19 January 2026 with respect to the specification have been fully considered. The objections of the specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 19 January 2026 with respect to claims 1 and 3-12 have been fully considered. The objections of claims 1 and 3-12 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 19 January 2026 with respect to claim 7 have been fully considered. The objections of claim 7 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 19 January 2026 with respect to claim 9 have been fully considered. The objection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 19 January 2026 with respect to claim 10 have been fully considered. The objections of claim 10 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 19 January 2026 with respect to claim 11 have been fully considered. The objections of claim 11 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 19 January 2026 with respect to claims 13-26 have been fully considered. The objections of claims 13-16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 19 January 2026 with respect to claims 15 and 16 have been fully considered. The objection of claims 15 and 16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 19 January 2026 with respect to claim 16 have been fully considered. The objection of claim 16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 19 January 2026 with respect to claims 17-19 have been fully considered. The objections of claims 17-19 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 19 January 2026 with respect to claim 19 have been fully considered. The objections of claim 19 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 19 January 2026 with respect to claims 1, 3, 8, 9, and 12 have been fully considered. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 8, 9, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanasaki et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,741,523 B2) has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 19 January 2026 with respect to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Radcliffe et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,512,290 B2) disclosed an X-ray tube with a flexible adjustment of an intensity.
Price et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,373,792 B2) disclosed a cathode assembly.
Lamaitre (U. S. Patent No. 10,032,595 B2) disclosed a robust electrode with a septum rod for a biased cathode in an X-ray tube.
Canfield (U. S. Patent No. 9,779,907 B2) disclosed an X-ray tube comprising a dual grid and a dual-filament cathode.
Canfield et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,659,741 B2) disclosed an X-ray tube comprising a planar emitter with tunable emission characteristics.
Ishihara et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,653,248 B2) disclosed an X-ray tube.
Greenland et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,324,536 B2) disclosed a dual-energy X-ray tube.
Reynolds et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,761,344 B2) disclosed a small X-ray tube comprising control optics of an electron beam.
Zou et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,588,372 B2) disclosed an apparatus for modifying an aspect ratio of an electron beam for a generation of X-rays.
Behling (U. S. Patent No. 8,498,380 B2) disclosed an X-ray tube comprising an auxiliary grid electrode.
Zou et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,396,185 B2) disclosed an apparatus and a method of a fast modulation of a current in an X-ray tube.
Bard et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,382,862 B2) disclosed an X-ray tube comprising a cathode with a reduced emission of an unintended electric field.
Turner et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,661,876 B2) disclosed a mobile miniature X-ray source.
Kuhn et al. (U. S. Patent No. 5,742,662 A) disclosed an X-ray tube comprising a structure for focusing an electron beam.
Fiebiger (U. S. Patent No. 5,170,422 A) disclosed an X-ray tube comprising an electron emitter.
Ono et al. (U. S. Patent No. 4,698,835 A) disclosed an X-ray tube.
Holland et al. (U. S. Patent No. 3,962,583 A) disclosed an X-ray tube comprising focusing means.
Heiting et al. (U. S. Patent No. 3,916,202 A) disclosed an electron tube comprising a lens-grid system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allen C. Ho, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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 J. 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.
Allen C. Ho, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Allen C. Ho/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Allen.Ho@uspto.gov