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) 1-2, 4-8, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuida (US 6452335).
Regarding claim 1, Tsuida discloses an apparatus, comprising: a support substrate (5/32); a field emitter device (33) disposed on the support substrate, including a gate (41) and a contact (46) electrically connected to the gate; a conductive plate (with 20), including: a protrusion (3) electrically connected to the contact (46) of the field emitter device (col. 4:12-13); and a clamp (with 4 and 6) coupled to the support substrate and the conductive plate such that the conductive plate electrically connects to the contact of the field emitter device (col. 4:44-48; via the cathode, which is held between 4 and 6, thereby rendering the connection of 3 to pads 46), wherein: the conductive plate (with 20) defines an opening (at the middle of 20 next to 5/32); and the conductive plate (20 starting next to 3 and extending to the middle of 20 next to 5/32) extends between the protrusion (at 3) and the opening (at the middle of 20 next to 5/32).
Regarding claim 2, Tsuida discloses wherein: the support substrate includes a depression (with 5); and the field emitter device (33) is disposed in the depression.
Regarding claim 4, Tsuida discloses wherein: a number of protrusions (some of 3) of the conductive plate (20) is different from a number of contacts (all of 46) of the field emitter device.
Regarding claim 5, Tsuida discloses a focus aperture cup (4); wherein: the support substrate (32), the field emitter device (33), the conductive plate (20), and the clamp (with 6) are disposed in the focus aperture cup (4).
Regarding claim 6, Tsuida discloses a plurality of fasteners (7 and 22) coupling the clamp (with 6) to the focus aperture cup (4).
Regarding claim 7, Tsuida discloses wherein: the focus aperture cup (4) includes a plurality of tabs (3); the clamp includes a plurality of notches (with 4 adjacent to 3); and each of the tabs (3) is disposed in a corresponding one of the notches (with 4 adjacent to 3).
Regarding claim 8, Tsuida discloses an insulator (51/52) connected to the focus aperture cup (4).
Regarding claim 11, Tsuida discloses wherein: the field emitter device is one of a plurality of field emitter devices (40), each including a gate (41) and a contact (46) electrically connected to the gate.
Regarding claim 12, Tsuida discloses wherein: the protrusion (3) is one of a plurality of protrusions of the conductive plate (20); and for each of the field emitter devices (on 33), the contact (46) is electrically connected to a corresponding one of the protrusions (3) of the conductive plate (20).
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuida as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Birnbach (US 2009/0285362).
Tsuida discloses claim 8. Tsuida further discloses support by the insulator (51/52) including a first conductor electrically connected to the focus aperture cup (for the Wehnelt electrode 4); support by the insulator including a second conductor electrically connected to the conductive plate (20: col. 4:29-34); and support by the insulator including a third conductor electrically connected to the support substrate (for emitter electrode 5).
However, Tsuida fails to disclose insulated feedthroughs.
Birnbach teaches insulated feedthroughs (par. 33).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify Tsuida with the teaching of Birnbach, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for facilitating voltage introduction (Birnbach: par. 33).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuida as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Price et al. (US 2003/0198318; hereinafter Price).
Tsuida discloses claim 5. Tsuida further discloses the focus aperture cup (4).
However, Tsuida fails to disclose a vacuum enclosure; and a target configured to emit x-rays (14) disposed within the vacuum enclosure; wherein: the field emitter device is disposed within the vacuum enclosure such that electrons emitted from the field emitter device are incident on the target.
Espinosa teaches a vacuum enclosure (76); and a target (72) configured to emit x-rays (14) disposed within the vacuum enclosure; wherein: the field emitter device (74 and fig. 6) is disposed within the vacuum enclosure such that electrons emitted from the field emitter device are incident on the target (figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Tsuida with the teaching of Price, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for more applications (Price: pars. 3 and 49).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuida as applied to claim 11 above.
Tsuida discloses claim 11. Tsuida further discloses wherein: the conductive plate is a conductive plate (20), each conductive plate including: a protrusion (3) electrically connected to the contact (46) of a corresponding one of the field emitter devices (on 33); and a plurality of compliant tabs (3) disposed on a perimeter of the conductive plate (20).
However, Tsuida fails to disclose a plurality.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify Tsuida with a plurality, since such a modification would have only constructed a formerly integral structure into various elements, which involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for less costly repair, by replacing less material.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuida in view of Iwamoto et al. (US 2010/0066468; hereinafter Iwamoto).
Regarding claim 19, Tsuida discloses an apparatus, comprising: a support substrate (5/32); a field emitter device including a field emitter (33) and disposed on the support substrate; a conductive plate (20 with 3); and a clamp (with 4 and 6) comprising a material (with spring 6) coupling the support substrate (5/32) to the conductive plate (20); wherein when the clamp (with 6) couples the support substrate (5/32) to the conductive plate (20), the field emitter (33 with 46) is electrically connected to the conductive plate (via 3).
However, Tsuida fails to disclose insulating material.
Iwamoto teaches insulating material (abstract: with a spring made of insulating material).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Tsuida with the teaching of Iwamoto, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Furthermore, since these spring materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to substitute one material type for another. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for reducing electric shock or leakage (Iwamoto: par. 23).
Furthermore, since the Examiner finds that the prior art contained a “base” upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”, and since the Examiner finds that the prior art contained a “comparable” system that has been improved as recited in the claimed invention, the Examiner thus finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique to the “base” and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, such a claimed combination would have been obvious.
Furthermore, since the Examiner finds that the prior art (i.e., Tsuida) contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of one type of spring with another, and since the Examiner finds that the substituted springs and their functions were known in the art, the Examiner thus finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known spring for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore, such a claimed combination would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 20, Tsuida discloses wherein: the conductive plate (with 3 and 20) deforms when the clamp (with 6) couples the support substrate (5/32) to the conductive plate (with 3 and 20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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. Claims 14-18 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 3 and its dependent claim(s), if any, the prior art (e.g., Tsuida) discloses an apparatus, comprising: a support substrate (5/32); a field emitter device (33) disposed on the support substrate, including a gate (41) and a contact (46) electrically connected to the gate; a conductive plate (with 20), including: a protrusion (3) electrically connected to the contact (46) of the field emitter device (col. 4:12-13); and a clamp (with 4 and 6) coupled to the support substrate and the conductive plate such that the conductive plate electrically connects to the contact of the field emitter device (col. 4:44-48; via the cathode, which is held between 4 and 6, thereby rendering the connection of 3 to pads 46), wherein: the conductive plate (with 20) defines an opening (at the middle of 20 next to 5/32); and the conductive plate (20 starting next to 3 and extending to the middle of 20 next to 5/32) extends between the protrusion (at 3) and the opening (at the middle of 20 next to 5/32).
However, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest an apparatus, including: wherein: the clamp is one of a plurality of clamps coupled to the support substrate and the conductive plate; the conductive plate further comprises a plurality of compliant tabs disposed on a perimeter of the conductive plate; the compliant tabs of the conductive plate are separated by a plurality of notches; the support substrate includes a plurality of notches; and each of the clamps includes a portion extending within a corresponding one of the notches of the conductive plate and a corresponding one of the notches of the support substrate, in combination with all of the other recitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 14 and its dependent claim(s), if any, the above prior art (i.e., Tsuida) discloses a corresponding method.
However, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest a method, including: electrically connecting the conductive plate to the contact of the field emitter device using a clamp that applies a force to opposite surfaces of the conductive plate and the support substrate, in combination with all of the other recitations in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 3, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 and Tsuida, Applicant argues that Tsuida fails to disclose the conductive plate extending between the protrusion and the opening. The Examiner disagrees. Tsuida discloses the conductive plate (20 starting next to 3 and extending to the middle of 20 next to 5/32) extends between the protrusion (at 3) and the opening (at the middle of 20 next to 5/32). Therefore, Tsuida still reads on claim 1, and the claim remains rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 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 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
Prosecution Insights