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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/11/2025, 11/04/2024, 11/01/2024 and 05/06/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a support member” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tietig (US Patent 1,992,335).
With respect to claim 1, Tietig teaches a vacuum tube support structure comprising (see Figs. 1-3; whole document): a vacuum tube (12); a cover (11) configured to cover the vacuum tube (12) (see Fig. 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
395
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a support member (10) configured to support the vacuum tube (12) and the cover (11), wherein the cover (11) includes a fluid introduction port (36) configured to allow a fluid to pass through the cover (11) to introduce the fluid inside the cover (11) and a fluid discharge port configured to allow the fluid to pass through the cover (11) to discharge the fluid from inside the cover (11), and the fluid introduced through the fluid introduction port contacts the vacuum tube (12) and is discharged through the fluid discharge port (36) (see Fig. 1; text page 1, column 1, line 3 – text page 2, column 1, line 13).
With respect to claim 2, Tietig teaches the vacuum tube support structure according to claim 1 (see Fig. 1; text page 1, column 1, line 3 – text page 2, column 1, line 13), wherein the fluid discharge port (36) is configured to allow wiring (24) of the vacuum tube to pass through the fluid discharge port (36) (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 3, Tietig teaches the vacuum tube support structure according to claim 1 (see Fig. 1; text page 1, column 1, line 3 – text page 2, column 1, line 13), further comprising a fluid supply apparatus (31), wherein the fluid supply apparatus (31) is configured to supply the fluid to the fluid introduction port (36) (see Fig. 1; text page 1, column 1, line 3 – text page 2, column 1, line 13).
With respect to claim 4, Tietig teaches the vacuum tube support structure according to claim 3 (see Fig. 1; text page 1, column 1, line 3 – text page 2, column 1, line 13), wherein the fluid supply apparatus (31) includes piping (see Fig.1) configured to connect to the fluid introduction port (36), and the piping is configured to supply the fluid to the fluid introduction port (36) (see Fig. 1; text page 1, column 1, line 3 – text page 2, column 1, line 13).
With respect to claim 5, Tietig teaches the vacuum tube support structure according to claim 3 (see Fig. 1; text page 1, column 1, line 3 – text page 2, column 1, line 13), wherein the fluid supply apparatus (31) includes a fan (37) configured to send the fluid (see Fig. 1; text page 1, column 1, line 3 – text page 2, column 1, line 13).
With respect to claim 6, Tietig teaches the vacuum tube support structure according to claim 3 (see Fig. 1; text page 1, column 1, line 3 – text page 2, column 1, line 13), wherein the fluid supply apparatus includes a cooling apparatus capable of cooling the fluid (see Fig. 1; text page 1, column 1, line 3 – text page 2, column 1, line 13). In addition, it has been held that the recitation that an element is “capable of” performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense.
With respect to claim 7, Tietig teaches the vacuum tube support structure according to claim 3 (see Fig. 1; text page 1, column 1, line 3 – text page 2, column 1, line 13), wherein the fluid supply apparatus includes a temperature adjustment apparatus capable of adjusting a temperature of the fluid (see Fig. 1; text page 1, column 1, line 3 – text page 2, column 1, line 13). In addition, it has been held that the recitation that an element is “capable of” performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense.
With respect to claim 8, Tietig teaches the vacuum tube support structure according to claim 1 (see Fig. 1; text page 1, column 1, line 3 – text page 2, column 1, line 13), further comprising a fluid discharge apparatus (31), wherein the fluid discharge apparatus (31) is configured to discharge the fluid from the fluid discharge port (36) (see Fig. 1; text page 1, column 1, line 3 – text page 2, column 1, line 13).
With respect to claim 9, Tietig teaches the vacuum tube support structure according to claim 8 (see Fig. 1; text page 1, column 1, line 3 – text page 2, column 1, line 13), wherein the fluid discharge apparatus (31) includes piping configured to connect to the fluid discharge port, and the piping is configured to discharge the fluid from the fluid discharge port (36) (see Fig. 1; text page 1, column 1, line 3 – text page 2, column 1, line 13).
With respect to claim 10, Tietig teaches the vacuum tube support structure according to claim 8 (see Fig. 1; text page 1, column 1, line 3 – text page 2, column 1, line 13), wherein the fluid discharge apparatus includes a fan (37) configured to send the fluid (see Fig. 1; text page 1, column 1, line 3 – text page 2, column 1, line 13).
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.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tietig (US Patent 1,992,335) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gruchatka et al. (US PAP 2015/0270092 A1).
With respect to claims 11 and 12, Tietig teaches the vacuum tube support structure according to claim 1 (see Fig. 1; text page 1, column 1, line 3 – text page 2, column 1, line 13) but fail to explicitly mention a sensor that is configured to measure a physical quantity of a measurement target by receiving electromagnetic waves irradiated from the vacuum tube toward the measurement target and a movement apparatus configured to move the sensor in a direction intersecting a direction of movement of the measurement target.
Gruchatka et al. discloses a CT system (1) comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1-3)
PNG
media_image2.png
507
457
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a fluid cooled X-ray tube (3) (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; paragraphs 0029, 0034, 0036 and 0042; claim 1) which explicitly teaches a sensor as an X-ray radiation detector (10) (see Fig. 1) that is configured to measure a physical quantity of a measurement target (a patient) by receiving electromagnetic waves irradiated from the X-ray tube (3) toward the measurement target and a movement apparatus (2) configured to move the sensor (10) in a direction intersecting a direction of movement of the measurement target (se Figs. 2 and 3; paragraphs 0029, 0034, 0036 and 0042; claim 1) in order to provide user with the capabilities to generate the X-ray images with apparatus comprising the X-ray tube cooled by a cooling fluid (see paragraph 0007).
Tietig and Gruchatka et al. disclose related apparatuses comprising the X-ray tube cooled by cooling fluid.
It 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 to provide teachings of the sensor that is configured to measure a physical quantity of a measurement target by receiving electromagnetic waves irradiated from the vacuum tube toward the measurement target and the movement apparatus configured to move the sensor in a direction intersecting a direction of movement of the measurement target as suggested by Gruchatka et al. in the apparatus of Tietig, since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to user with the capabilities to generate the X-ray images.
It would have been obvious to treat Tietig and Gruchatka et al. as related art whereby an improvement on one of the systems/methods would readily be apparent as an improvement on either of the systems.
The Examiner’s conclusion that claims 11 and 12 would have been obvious is based on the fact that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRAKLI KIKNADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6494. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 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 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.
Irakli Kiknadze
/IRAKLI KIKNADZE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/I.K./ December 7, 2025