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
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: please correct to read –The source of claim 1--. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 7222971 (Chang).
Regarding claim 1, Chang disclose a multi-spot, digitally-addressable X-ray source operable so as to emit X-ray flux from separate spots in the source to separate samples in an array of samples outside the source (Fig. 2), the source comprising a cathode array in which individual cathodes emit electron beams (C) which are accelerated across a vacuum space to impact corresponding spots on an x-ray anode disposed opposite the cathode array (A).
Regarding claim 2, Chang disclose a system using the source of Claim 1 in which the separate samples in the sample array are irradiated to determine the chemical or biological effects of the radiation (column 1, lines 38-42).
Please note that the limitation “the separate samples in the sample array” is drawn to the object worked upon by the claim system and the limitation “are irradiated to determine the chemical or biological effects of the radiation” is drawn to intended use of the system.
Regarding claim 3, Chang disclose a system using the source of Claim 1 in which the separate samples in the sample array are contained in a microwell plate. Please note that since the separate samples in the sample array is drawn to the object worked upon by the system. Please note that the limitation “a microwell plate” has not been positively recited as part of the claimed system or claimed source.
Regarding claim 4, Chang disclose a system using the source of Claim 1 in conjunction with an x-ray detector disposed beyond the samples so as to image the samples (column 5, lines 57-54). Please note that the limitation “an x-ray detector disposed beyond the samples so as to image the samples” has not been positively recited as part of the claimed system or claimed source.
Regarding claim 6, Chang disclose the source of Claim 1 in which the anode is a transmission anode, with the anode disposed between the cathode array and the sample array (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Chang disclose the source of Claim 1 in which the anode or part of the anode forms an integral art of the vacuum enclosure of the source (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Chang disclose the source of Claim 1 in which the cathodes, gates and focusing elements are disposed on plates with openings that allow the x-ray flux from an individual spot on the anode to pass through unimpeded and undistorted on its way to irradiate or image the sample (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Chang disclose the system of Claim 2 in which the x-ray beams from the anode are addressed sequentially (column 4, line 64-column 5, line 34; column 6, lines 15-27).
Regarding claim 10, Chang disclose the system of Claim 2 in which one or more x-rays beams from the anode are addressed simultaneously (column 4, line 64-column 5, line 34; column 6, lines 15-27).
Regarding claim 11, Chang disclose the source of Claim 1 in which different individual spots on the anode are addressed with electron beams having different voltage, current or impact duration, so as to vary the energy, dose or intensity of the x-ray flux (column 4, line 64-column 5, line 34; column 6, lines 15-27).
Regarding claim 12, Chang disclose the source of Claim 1 in which separate areas of the electron impact surface of the anode are comprised of different metals, so as to generate different x-ray spectra (column 7, lines 45-65).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7222971 (Chang).
Regarding claim 5, Chang disclose the source of Claim 1, but fails to teach in which the anode is a reflective anode, with the cathodes in the cathode array disposed between the anode and the sample array.
However, applicant teaches a source configured with reflective or transmission anodes or with the forward flux channel anode to be obvious variants (summary of invention [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to choose from these identified anode options with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANI FOX whose telephone number is (571)272-3513. 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.
/DANI FOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884