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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not describe “the selected photon energy is tunable by controlling, at least, by changing an azimuthal collection angle of the extracted portion of the X-ray emission about an axis parallel to the beam of free electrons, and/or by rotating the crystalline material azimuthally about the axis parallel”. Figures 30A-C only describes Coulomb field of an electron scatters, energy and momentum and theoretical prediction of the x-ray output.
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) 1-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaminer et al. (US 20230369004) in view of Maalej et al. (US 20200069271).
Regarding claim 1, Kaminer teaches a method of generating X-ray emission, comprising the steps of:
generating a beam of free electrons 110 using an electron source;
directing the beam of free electrons onto a crystalline material 100 having a periodic material structure;
generating X-ray emission 120 as a result of the interaction between the free electrons and the crystalline material; and
extracting a portion of the X-ray emission for providing an X-ray beam having a selected photon energy (certain spectral content at certain spatial distribution, para 44-45);
wherein the selected photon energy is tunable by controlling, at least, a tilt angle of the crystalline material relative to the beam of free electrons (para 46).
However Kaminer fails to teach changing an azimuthal collection angle of the extracted portion of the X-ray emission about an axis parallel to the beam of free electrons, and/or by rotating the crystalline material azimuthally about the axis parallel.
Maalej teaches changing an azimuthal collection angle of the extracted portion of the X-ray emission about an axis parallel to the beam of free electrons, and/or by rotating the crystalline material 102 azimuthally about the axis parallel 104 (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the changing of Kaminer with the rotation as taught by Maalej, since it would prolong the anode life.
Regarding claim 2, Kaminer teaches tuning the selected photon energy by controlling one or more of a group consisting of a collection angle for extracting the X-ray beam relative to the beam of free electrons, the crystalline material and its atomic composition, and an energy of the beam of free electrons (para 46).
Regarding claim 3, Kaminer teaches tuning the selected photon energy by simultaneously controlling at least two of a group consisting of the tilt angle of the crystalline material relative to the beam of free electrons, the collection angle for extracting the X-ray beam relative to the beam of free electrons, the crystalline material and its atomic composition, and the energy of the beam of free electrons (para 49).
Regarding claim 4, Kaminer teaches the tilt angle is controllable in a range from a channelling configuration in which the periodic structure extends substantially parallel to the beam of free electrons and a perpendicular configuration in which the periodic structure extends substantially perpendicular to the beam of free electrons (para 45+).
Regarding claim 5, Kaminer teaches directing the beam of free electrons onto a stack of two or more crystalline materials with different periodic structures and extracting two or more X-rays beams of different energy from respective ones of the two or more crystalline materials (para 47).
Regarding claim 8, Kaminer teaches the selected energy of the extracted X-ray beam or beams is determined based on consideration of quantum recoil in the interaction between the free electrons and the crystalline material or materials (para 79).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaminer in view of Safai (US 20120321046) and Maalej et al. (US 20200069271).
Regarding claim 6, Kaminer teaches extracting the X-ray beam comprises disposing one or more windows having respective selected dimensions and collection angle at respective selected distances from the crystalline material such that only the X-ray beams passing through the respective one or more windows are extracted while a remaining portion of the generated X-ray emission is blocked.
Safai teaches extracting the X-ray beam comprises disposing one or more windows 512 having respective selected dimensions and collection angle at respective selected distances from the crystalline material such that only the X-ray beams 500 passing through the respective one or more windows are extracted while a remaining portion of the generated X-ray emission is blocked (figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the x-ray source of Kaminer with the window as taught by Safai, since it would better beam positioning.
Regarding claim 7, Safai teaches controlling the dimensions of the respective one or more windows by changing apertures of the respective one or more windows (figure 5).
Regarding claim 11, Kaminer teaches a system for generating X-ray emission, comprising:
an electron source for generating a beam of free electrons;
a crystalline material 100 and having a periodic material structure, whereby X-ray emission is generated as a result of the interaction between the free electrons and the crystalline material; and providing an X-ray beam having a selected photon energy, wherein the selected photon energy is tunable by controlling, at least, a tilt angle of the crystalline material relative to the beam of free electrons.
However Kaminer fails to teach vacuum chamber containing the electron source nor electron optics for directing the beam of free electrons nor one or more windows in a wall structure of the vacuum chamber for extracting a portion of the X- ray emission nor the one or more windows having respective selected dimensions and collection angles at respective selected distances from the crystalline material such that only the X-ray beams passing through the respective one or more windows are extracted while a remaining portion of the generated X-ray emission is blocked.
Safai teaches vacuum chamber 122 containing the electron source, electron optics 128 for directing the beam of free electrons, one or more windows 512 in a wall structure 204 of the vacuum chamber for extracting a portion of the X- ray emission nor the one or more windows having respective selected dimensions and collection angles at respective selected distances from the crystalline material such that only the X-ray beams passing through the respective one or more windows are extracted while a remaining portion of the generated X-ray emission is blocked (figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the x-ray source of Kaminer with the window as taught by Safai, since it would better beam positioning.
Furthermore, Kaminer fails to teach changing an azimuthal collection angle of the extracted portion of the X-ray emission about an axis parallel to the beam of free electrons, and/or by rotating the crystalline material azimuthally about the axis parallel.
Maalej teaches changing an azimuthal collection angle of the extracted portion of the X-ray emission about an axis parallel to the beam of free electrons, and/or by rotating the crystalline material 102 azimuthally about the axis parallel 104 (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the changing of Kaminer with the rotation as taught by Maalej, since it would prolong the anode life.
Regarding claim 12, Kaminer teaches the selected photon energy is further tunable by controlling one or more of a group consisting of a collection angle for extracting the X-ray beam relative to the beam of free electrons, the crystalline material and its atomic composition, and an energy of the beam of free electrons (para 46).
Regarding claim 13, Kaminer teaches the selected photon energy is tunable by simultaneously controlling at least two of a group consisting of the tilt angle of the crystalline material relative to the beam of free electrons, the collection angle for extracting the X-ray beam relative to the beam of free electrons, the crystalline material and its atomic composition, and the energy of the beam of free electrons (para 49).
Regarding claim 14, Kaminer teaches the tilt angle is controllable in a range from a channelling configuration in which the periodic structure extends substantially parallel to the beam of free electrons and a perpendicular configuration in which the period structure extends substantially perpendicular to the beam of free electrons (para 45+).
Regarding claim 15, Kaminer teaches a stack of two or more crystalline materials with different periodic structures and wherein the windows in the wall structure of the vacuum chamber are disposed for extracting two or more X- rays beams of different energy from respective ones of the two or more crystalline materials as a result of the interaction between the free electrons and the two or more crystalline materials (para 47+).
Regarding claim 16, Safai teaches the dimensions of the respective one or more windows are controllable by changing apertures of the respective one or more windows (figure 5).
Regarding claim 17, Kaminer teaches the selected energy of the extracted X-ray beam or beams is determined based on consideration of quantum recoil in the interaction between the free electrons and the crystalline material or materials (para 79).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim9-10 and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the prior art fails to teach the selected energy of the extracted X-ray beam or beams is determined based on:
PNG
media_image1.png
24
175
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
38
245
media_image2.png
Greyscale
'
PNG
media_image3.png
77
645
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 HOON K SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2494. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 10am to 7pm.
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.
/HOON K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884