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 17 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
17. (Proposed Amendments) An X-ray tube comprising:
an anode;
a cathode comprising an emitter recess with an emitter recess width;
an electron emitter for generating free electrons; and
an electron optics comprising an opening, a first height, and a first width,
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 is between 1 mm and 10 mm, inclusive,
wherein the first width is between 3 mm and 8 mm, inclusive,
wherein the emitter recess width is between 0.5 mm and 3 mm, inclusive,
wherein a thickness of the opening is between 0.01 mm and 3 mm, inclusive,
wherein a minimal distance between the electron emitter and the opening is between 0.01 mm and 0.5 mm, inclusive, and
wherein a minimal distance between the cathode and the anode is at least 6.35 mm.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites a functional limitation “the cathode and the electron optics are settable at an electric potential between -4 kV and 70 kV, and the anode is settable at an electric potential of 0 V” in lines 1-3, which renders the claim indefinite.
During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. It is a best practice to make the record clear during prosecution by explaining the BRI of claim terms, as necessary, including explaining the BRI of any functional language. When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked, the BRI of the “means-plus-function” limitation is restricted to a corresponding structure in the supporting disclosure, and its equivalents (a corresponding specification that identifies and links a structure, material, or act to the function recited in the claim is considered to be part of the claim limitation). When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked and an element is recited along with a function, that element is construed as being capable of performing the function – in other words, the BRI of that element is limited by the function.
It should be kept in mind, however, that there is a distinction between reciting a function compared to reciting an intended use or result. A functional limitation can provide a patentable distinction (limit the claim scope) by imposing limits on the function of a structure, material, or action. Typically, no patentable distinction (no limit on the claim scope) is made by an intended use or result unless some structural difference is imposed by the use or result on the structure or material recited in the claim, or some manipulative difference is imposed by the use or result on the action recited in the claim.
While functional limitations may be properly used in claims, the boundaries imposed by a functional limitation must be clearly defined to be definite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim language that merely states a result to be obtained without providing boundaries on the claim scope (e.g., by not specifying any way to achieve those results) is unclear. Consider the following to determine whether a claim limitation expressed in functional language has clear boundaries: whether one of ordinary skill in the art can determine what structure, material, or act in the claim performs this function; whether the limitation has well defined boundaries or only expresses a problem solved or intended result; and what an anticipatory reference would need to disclose in order to satisfy this claim limitation. These considerations are not all-inclusive or limiting.
When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked, the specification must adequately disclose a corresponding structure, material, or act that performs the function. For “means”-type claims, an adequate disclosure requires that a corresponding structure or material is: (a) disclosed in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand what specific structure or material the inventor has identified to perform the recited function; (b) sufficient to perform the entire function recited in the claim limitation; and (c) clearly linked to the function in the written description.
When the examiner determines that the boundaries of a claim are not reasonably clear, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. Such a rejection puts the applicant on notice that it must fulfill its statutory duty under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to ensure that claim language clearly defines the boundaries of the claim scope sought. In making a rejection, the examiner must identify the specific claim language that is indefinite, and explain why that language renders the boundaries of the claim unclear. When possible, the examiner should suggest how the indefiniteness issues may be resolved.
The boundaries of the functional language are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., an anode, a cathode, an electron emitter, and an electron optics, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the X-ray tube in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
The limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (“the cathode and the electron optics are settable at an electric potential between -4 kV and 70 kV, and the anode is settable at an electric potential of 0 V”) without providing any indication about how the function is performed. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., an anode, a cathode, an electron emitter, and an electron optics, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the X-ray tube in a certain manner.
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 an additional structural limitation because an electrical potential does not alter a structure of the cathode, the electron optics and the anode. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
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.
With respect to claims 13-16, 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),
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.
However, the prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggested that the X-ray tube further comprising:
an electron optics further comprises a focal cylinder, following the opening of the electron optics in an acceleration direction of the free electrons.
With respect to claims 17 and 19, 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) 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 (L1b = 7.5 mm),
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.
However, the prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggested that the X-ray tube further comprising:
wherein a thickness of the opening is between 0.01 mm and 3 mm, inclusive,
wherein a minimal distance between the electron emitter and the opening is between 0.01 mm and 0.5 mm, inclusive, and
wherein a minimal distance between the cathode and the anode is at least 6.35 mm.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 16 June 2026 with respect to claims 1 and 3-12 have been fully considered. The objection of claims 1 and 3-12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 16 June 2026 with respect to claim 8 have been fully considered. The objections of claim 8 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 16 June 2026 with respect to claim 21 have been fully considered. The objections of claim 21 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 16 June 2026 with respect to claims 13, 14, 17, and 21 have been fully considered. The rejection of claims 13, 14, 17, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanasaki et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,741,523 B1) has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 21, the amended claim still fails to set forth an additional structural limitation as claim 21 does not claim a mechanism by which the cathode, the electron optics, and anode are settable at an electrical potential.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zou et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,627,087 B2) disclosed a high-compression electron gun comprising a one-dimensional grid mesh.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights