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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-2, 4-6, 12, 14, and 17-22 in the reply filed on 10 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–-----103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103) 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)(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.
(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 1-2 and 12
Claims 1-2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kuzniar (US 6,570,960 B1).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, a copy of Figure 4 of Kuzniar is provided below, annotated by Examiner.
[AltContent: textbox (enclosure /
insert)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (anode
assembly)]
PNG
media_image1.png
887
1409
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Kuzniar, annotated by Examiner to show features of Applicant’s claimed invention.
With particular reference to the annotated figure above, Kuzniar discloses an x-ray assembly (Fig. 4), comprising: a rotatable anode assembly (24) including: an anode (30) drivable by a stator (138) to rotate about an axis of rotation; and at least one magnet (130 positioned on and rotatable with the anode (30) about the axis of rotation (col. 10, l. 8 - col 11, l. 7; Fig. 4).
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Kuzniar discloses an enclosure (26) including a wall, wherein the anode (30) is positioned within the wall (Fig. 4); the stator (138) positioned external to the wall (Fig. 4); and a sensor (132) configured to sense a magnetic field of the at least one magnet through the wall (Fig. 4) (col. 10, l. 8 - col 11, l. 7; Fig. 4).
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, see the rejection regarding claims 1-2 above, wherein Kuzniar discloses a method of detecting rotation of an anode in an x-ray tube (“for communication purposes”, col. 10, ll. 30-31), the method comprising: providing a sensor (132) at a wall of an enclosure (26) of an x-ray tube (see title); rotating an anode within the enclosure (see title); providing at least one magnet (130) on the anode (30), wherein the at least one magnet (130) is rotatable with the anode (30) about an axis of rotation (A—A) of the anode (30); and detecting a change in a signal produced by the sensor (132) in response to movement of a magnetic field of the at least one magnet (130) as the anode (30) rotates within the wall of the enclosure (26) (via motor controller 134) (col. 10, l. 8 - col 11, l. 7; Fig. 4).
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102–103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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 C.F.R. § 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 6, and 14
Claims 4, 6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzniar as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US 2008/0067399 A1).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Kuzniar discloses the x-ray assembly of claim 2.
Kuzniar does not expressly disclose a shield surrounding the sensor, wherein a portion of the shield is open toward the anode.
Takahashi discloses an x-ray assembly, comprising: an anode assembly including an anode (18); an enclosure (12) including a wall, wherein the anode (18) is positioned within the wall (12); a sensor (32) configured to sense a magnetic field; and a shield (20) surrounding the sensor (32), wherein a portion of the shield (20) is open toward the anode (18; openings centered around center axis (11a) in the shield (20) can be seen in Fig. 1) (¶¶ 17-19, 23-39; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have modified the invention of Kuzniar, in view of the teachings of Takahashi, to include a shield surrounding the sensor, wherein a portion of the shield is open toward the anode.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Takahashi of reducing the deleterious effects of an external magnetic field (Takahashi, ¶18).
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Kuzniar modified teaches the x-ray assembly of claim 4, wherein the shield comprises a material comprising at least one of: mu-metal, nanoperm, permalloy, metaglas, or 99.95% pure hydrogen-annealed iron (i.e., permalloy; Takahashi, ¶ 25).
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, Kuzniar discloses the method of claim 12. Kuzniar does not expressly disclose positioning a shield around the sensor, the shield being configured to redirect a second magnetic field from the sensor.
Takahashi discloses an x-ray assembly, comprising: an anode assembly including an anode (18); an enclosure (12) including a wall, wherein the anode (18) is positioned within the wall (12); a sensor (32) configured to sense a magnetic field (portion of an external magnetic field reaching the sensor (32)); and a shield (20) surrounding the sensor (32), wherein a portion of the shield (20) is open toward the anode (18; openings centered around center axis (11a) in the shield (20) can be seen in Fig. 1), wherein the shield (20) is configured to redirect a second magnetic field (portion of the external magnetic field blocked by the shield (20)) from the sensor (¶¶ 17-19, 23-39; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have modified the invention of Kuzniar, in view of the teachings of Takahashi, to include positioning a shield around the sensor, the shield being configured to redirect a second magnetic field from the sensor.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Takahashi of reducing the deleterious effects of an external magnetic field (Takahashi, ¶18).
Claim 5
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzniar in view of Takahashi as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kole (US 2016/0073558 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kuzniar modified teaches the x-ray assembly of claim 4, wherein the shield (20) is formed of permalloy (Takahashi, ¶ 25) and has “high permeability” (Takahashi, ¶ 7), but Kuzniar modified does not expressly disclose the permalloy has a relative permeability of greater than or equal to 15,000.
However, permalloy is routinely fabricated and used for magnetic field shielding by having relative permeabilities in this range. For example, Kole discloses forming permalloy for use as magnetic field shielding having a relative permeability of 300,000 (¶ 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have further modified the invention of Kuzniar, in view of the teachings of Kole, fir the permalloy in the shield to have a relative permeability within the claimed range.
One would have been motivated to do so to provide the well-known advantage recited in Kole wherein “the higher the permeability of the material, the more effective it will be as a magnetic shield” (Kole, ¶ 26).
Claims 17-21
Claims 17-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzniar in view of Takahashi.
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection regarding claim 1 above, wherein Kuzniar discloses an x-ray tube assembly (Fig. 4), comprising: an insert (26); a stator (138) positioned around the insert (26); and a magnetic sensor (132) including an end (as seen in Fig. 4) facing toward an interior of the insert (26) and the stator (138) (col. 10, l. 8 - col 11, l. 7; Fig. 4).
Kuzniar does not expressly disclose a magnetic shield surrounding the magnetic sensor and being open at the end facing toward the interior of the insert.
Takahashi discloses an x-ray assembly, comprising: an anode assembly including an anode (18); an insert (12) including a wall, wherein the anode (18) is positioned within the wall (12); a sensor (32) configured to sense a magnetic field; and a shield (20) surrounding the sensor (32), wherein a portion of the shield (20) is open toward the anode (18) and the insert (12) (openings centered around center axis (11a) in the shield (20) can be seen in Fig. 1) (¶¶ 17-19, 23-39; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have modified the invention of Kuzniar, in view of the teachings of Takahashi, to include a magnetic shield surrounding the magnetic sensor and being open at the end facing toward the interior of the insert.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Takahashi of reducing the deleterious effects of an external magnetic field (Takahashi, ¶18).
Claim 18
Regarding claim 18, Kuzniar modified teaches the x-ray tube assembly of claim 17, further comprising an anode assembly (24) including a rotor (70, 104) positioned within and rotatable relative to the stator (75, 138) and at least one magnet rotatable (130) with the rotor (70, 104), and wherein the magnetic sensor (132) is configured to sense a magnetic field of the at least one magnet (130) (Kuzniar, col. 4, l. 48 - col. 8, l. 21; col. 10, l. 8 - col 11, l. 7; Figs. 2a, 4).
Claim 19
Regarding claim 19, Kuzniar modified teaches the x-ray tube assembly of claim 18, wherein the insert (26) comprises a wall, the at least one magnet (130) being positioned within the wall, and the magnetic sensor (132) being positioned on or outside the wall (Kuzniar, col. 10, l. 8 - col 11, l. 7; Fig. 4).
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, Kuzniar modified teaches the x-ray tube assembly of claim 18, wherein the at least one magnet (130) positioned on the rotor (104) is movable past the magnetic sensor (132) as the rotor (104) rotates relative to the stator (138) (Kuzniar, col. 10, l. 8 - col 11, l. 7; Fig. 4).
The embodiment shown in Fig. 4 of Kuzniar uses only one magnetic sensor (sensor magnet 130), and not at last two magnets positioned spaced apart on the rotor, such that the at least two magnets are movable past the magnetic sensor as the rotor rotates relative to the stator. However, Kuzniar further discloses “the number of … sensor magnets … can be varied” (Kuzniar, col. 10, ll. 37-52).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have further modified the invention of Kuzniar as shown in Fig. 1 of Kuzniar, in view of the variable number of sensor magnets disclosed by Kuzniar to include at last two magnets positioned spaced apart on the rotor, such that the at least two magnets are movable past the magnetic sensor as the rotor rotates relative to the stator. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
One would have been motivated to use two or more magnets as claimed so to gain an advantage recited in Kuzniar of achieving a desired operation (Kuzniar, col. 10, ll. 37-52).
Claim 21
Regarding claim 21, Kuzniar modified teaches the x-ray tube assembly of claim 17, wherein the magnetic sensor (132) comprises an elongated shape having an elongated length (see Kuzniar, Fig. 4) surrounded by the magnetic shield (see rejection of claim 17 above for the shielding).
Claim 22
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzniar in view of Takahashi as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kole.
Regarding claim 22, Kuzniar modified teaches the x-ray tube assembly of claim 17. For the further limitations of claim 22, see the rejection of claim 5 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Munger (US 2007/0030958 A1) discloses a magnetically shielded X-ray tube comprising a rotating anode (¶ 37).
Suzuki (US 5,754,621 A) discloses providing magnetic shielding for an X-ray photoconverter (col. 19, l. 42 - col. 20, l. 13).
Atlee (US 2,233,194 A) discloses a rotating anode X-ray tube comprising magnetic shielding (col. 1, ll. 1-22).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE RIDDICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1865. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm ET, with flexible scheduling.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-2995. 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.
Blake C. Riddick, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights