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 01/07/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to the Office action dated on 01/07/2026 the amendment has been received on 04/07/2026. Claims 1, 2, and 6 have been amended. Claims 1-6 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 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.
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.
The claimed limitations such as applied voltage corresponding to length of the first housing is unclear and appears invalid as indefinite, since only intended use is defined by the claim, there is nothing in the specification to tell public what to do to avoid infringement in this respect or where infringement begins; rule against indefiniteness is not only a technical one, but is to protect public and keep patentee from taking an advantage to which he is not entitled.
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.
(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 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inazuru (US PAP 2009/0161830 A1; the prior art provided by applicant).
With respect to claim 1, Inazury teaches an X-ray source (1), comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1-12; paragraphs 0029-0061):
PNG
media_image1.png
729
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
712
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
694
483
media_image3.png
Greyscale
an anode electrode (5); a target (5d) electrically connected to the anode electrode (5); a first housing (7) of an insulating material (glass) accommodating at least a part of the anode electrode (5) (See Figs. 1-4; paragraph 0032); an emitter (11) formed opposite to the target (5d); a cathode (21) electrode electrically connected to the emitter (11); and a second housing (9) of a conductive material (metal) accommodating at least a part of the cathode electrode (21) (see Figs 1-4; paragraphs 0032-0038): wherein the first housing (7) and the second housing (9) are connected to each other along a longitudinal direction, and the second housing (9) is grounded in order to swiftly remove any possible residual charges as a safety matter (see paragraph 0061).
With respect to claim 3, Inazury teaches the X-ray source of claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-12; paragraphs 0029-0061), further comprising: a flange provided on an outer surface of the second housing (9); and a window (10) formed on the flange (see abstract; Figs. 1-12; paragraphs 0029-0061).
With respect to claim 4, Inazury teaches the X-ray source of claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-12; paragraphs 0029-0061), wherein the second housing (9) further comprises an insulating spacer; and the cathode electrode (21) is fixed to the insulating spacer (see abstract; Figs. 1-12; paragraphs 0029-0061).
With respect to claim 5, Inazury teaches the X-ray source of claim 4 (see abstract; Figs. 1-12; paragraphs 0029-0061), wherein the cathode electrode is disposed inside or outside the second housing (see abstract; Figs. 1-12; paragraphs 0029-0061).
With respect to claim 6, Inazury teaches (as best understood by examiner) the X-ray source of claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-12; paragraphs 0029-0061), wherein the size of the anode voltage applied to the anode electrode is corresponding to the length of the first housing (see abstract; Figs. 1-12; paragraphs 0029-0061). It is been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
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 1, 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartl (US Patent 4,053,802).
With respect to claim 1, Harti teaches an X-ray source, comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; column 1, line 50 – column 4, line 40):
PNG
media_image4.png
562
379
media_image4.png
Greyscale
an anode electrode (5); a target (5) electrically connected to the anode electrode (5) (see Figs. 1 and 2); a first housing (3) of an insulating material (made of aluminum oxide ceramic or another insulating material) accommodating at least a part of the anode electrode (5) (see Figs. 1 and 2; column 1, line 55 – column 2, line 65); an emitter (4) formed opposite to the target (5); a cathode electrode (4) electrically connected to the emitter (4) ; and a second housing (1) of a conductive material (a metal envelope) accommodating at least a part of the cathode electrode (5): wherein the first housing (3) and the second housing (1) are connected to each other along a longitudinal direction (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; column 1, line 50 – column 4, line 40) but fails to explicitly mention that the second housing is grounded.
It is known that the primary reasoning for grounding electrical components is safety. By establishing a direct, low-resistance path to the earth, grounding protects people from electrical shock, protects equipment from voltage surges. Explicitly to Xray tubes, grounding the electrical components and protective housing of an X-ray tube ensures operator/patient safety and system stability. Because X-ray tubes operate at extremely high voltages, grounding prevents the external metal casing from becoming energized, mitigating fatal shock hazards and safely directing fault currents to the earth.
Therefore, 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 the arrangement wherein the second housing made of a conductive material is grounded in the X-ray source of Hartl, since such a modification would provide user the X-ray tube that ensures operator/patient safety and system stability while swiftly removing any possible residual charges as a safety matter.
With respect to claim 2, Harti teaches (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; column 1, line 50 – column 4, line 40) the X-ray source of claim 1, wherein an inner diameter of the first housing (3) is larger in a direction as it moves from the anode electrode (5) to the cathode electrode (4) (see Figs. 1 and 2).
With respect to claim 6, Hartl teaches (as best understood by examiner) the X-ray source of claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; column 1, line 50 – column 4, line 40), wherein the size of the anode voltage applied to the anode electrode is corresponding to the length of the first housing (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; column 1, line 50 – column 4, line 40).
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 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./ June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights