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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 20 December 2023 has been accepted and entered.
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
With respect to claim 6, this claim has been amended to depend upon itself and its scope cannot be determined. For the purposes of this examination, the claim will be read to depend upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1,5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al. (JP 2001126650 A1, translation enclosed), in view of Zou et al. (US 2011/0142204 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Fujii discloses: an X-ray generation device comprising: a housing (vacuum envelope 11); an electron gun including an electron-emitting unit configured to emit an electron inside the housing (electron gun, 14); a target configured to generate an X-ray upon an incidence of the electron inside the housing (anode target, 13); a window member sealing an opening of the housing and configured to transmit the X-ray (transmission window, 12); a tube voltage application unit configured to apply a tube voltage between the electron emitting unit and the target (acceleration voltage, par. [0004]); wherein a thickness of the target has a distribution (shown in Fig. 1, element 13), and the target is disposed such that the electron is incident on a portion of the target which is relatively thinner in the thickness when the tube voltage is relatively low than when the tube voltage is relatively high (par. [0004], penetration depth is proportional to acceleration voltage). Fujii does not specify the claimed extraction electrode. Zou, from the same field of endeavor, discloses an extraction electrode (abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate an extraction electrode in an electron gun configuration, in order to effectively draw electrons from a cathode emitter and form an electron beam for directing towards a target.
With further respect to claims 1 and 6, Fujii does not specify that the target is inclined, as claimed. Zou further discloses an x-ray source (abstract) comprising magnetic deflection means (62), wherein the target is inclined such that it faces both of an exit aperture and an electron source (48, Fig. 10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to orient the target as necessary in order to obtain a desired emission direction, such as in the manner of Zou, as it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Zou discloses a target supported in a state where the target is inclined to face both the electron gun (in a downward direction, Fig. 1) and the window member (to the left towards 52, Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 5, the combination as applied to claim 1 above does not specify that the target is formed on an interior side of the window member, as claimed. However, Zou discloses a target (48) adjacent to the window (52, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to form the target on the surface of the window, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii, in view of Zou, in further view of Kozaczek et al. (US 2011/0150184 A1, cited by Applicant).
With respect to claim 2, Fujii does not specify the claimed target configuration. Kozaczek, as applied in combination above, discloses the claimed device wherein the target becomes thinner from a central portion toward a peripheral edge of the target, and the target is disposed such that the electron beam is incident on a peripheral edge side as the tube voltage becomes relatively lower (par. [0038]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a desired target shape, depending on the desired emission characteristics, as it has been held that more than mere change of form or shape is necessary for patentability. Span-Deck Inc. v. Fab-Con, Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPQ 835.
With respect to claim 3, Fujii discloses the use of deflection electrons rather than a magnetic field for deflection of the electron beam. Kozaczek (US 2011/0150184 A1, cited by Applicant) discloses the use of a magnet for application of a magnetic field used to alter an electron beam path to a target (par. [0039, 0040]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ known methods of applying magnetic fields to electron beams, such as that of Kozaczek, in order to provide more precise control and accuracy, and the ability achieve larger deflection angles when compared with electric fields.
With respect to claim 4, Kozaczek discloses the use of a permanent magnet (par. [0039]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R GAWORECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-6 PM.
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.
/MARK R GAWORECKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 10 October 2025