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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/7/2024 is 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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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) 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) 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) 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: “arrangement for” in claims 1-3, 7-12, 14 and 15. **Claims 4-6 and 13 are considered to recite sufficient structure so as to revert the “arrangement for” to being interpreted under BRI.**
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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 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.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonoguchi (EP 3 093 867 A1) in view of Bauer (DE 10 2010 009 276 A1, pagination according to provided translation).
Regarding claim 1, Nonoguchi discloses an x-ray source (Fig.2), including:
a) an electron source 11 for providing an electron beam, the electron source 11 including a cathode 21, a Wehnelt 22, and an anode 23;
b) an electron optic arrangement 12-15 configured to deflect and focus the electron beam towards a target 17 for generation of x-ray radiation;
c) an arrangement for determining a quantity indicative of a width of the electron beam; and
d) a controller operatively connected to the electron source 11, the electron optic arrangement 12-15, and the arrangement for determining the quantity indicative of the width of the electron beam; where
the controller is configured to:
e) compute a quantity dependent on a divergence of the electron beam at an entrance of the electron optic arrangement 12-15 based on the quantity indicative of the width of the electron beam (spot size, Figs.5-8: the measured intensity of the backscattered x-rays at the detector 16 as the electron beam is swept across the three target materials is indicative of the size and shape of the focal spot (see Figs.6 and 8, and corresponding descriptions), which is inherently dependent on all upstream characteristics, including the divergence of the electron beam at an entrance of the electron optics); and
f) apply an adjustment such that the quantity dependent on the divergence of the electron beam at the entrance of the electron optic arrangement is adjusted towards a desired value (applies corrective currents to the electron optics in order to optimize the computed quantities, Figs.5-8).
Further regarding claim 1, Nonoguchi does not specifically disclose applying a bias voltage to the Wehnelt in order to adjust the computed quantity to the desired value.
Nonoguchi does optimize the bias voltage to the Wehnelt in order to minimize the size of the electron beam crossover (col.13, lines 15-19 and 29-33), where the crossover point of the electron beam is the well-known determinant of the electron beam divergence at the entrance of the electron optics in electron guns that use Wehnelt electrodes, and the whole point of Wehnelt electrodes is to be able to provide ready adjustment of the crossover point by providing a bias voltage relative to the electron emitter (see Conclusion).
However, Nonoguchi does not specifically disclose how the bias voltage applied to the Wehnelt is optimized.
Bauer teaches the practice of adjusting the bias voltage of a Wehnelt 44 relative to an electron emitter 42 such that the crossover point of the x-ray beam 60 is optimally placed for optimal beam divergence at the entrance of the electron optics 52 (middle of p.9). Specifically, the focal spot is considered to be optimally sized when the measured intensity of x-rays (detectors 87) or measured intensity of backscattered electrons (detectors 90) from the x-ray target 72 reaches a predetermined intensity value (p.13, 1st paragraph after the heading “5. Further embodiments”).
Since Nonoguchi already measures the focal spot as a function of electron backscatter intensity and selects the correction parameters of the electron optics based on the measured intensities, then it falls within the level of routine experimentation to also adjust the Wehnelt bias voltage based on an electron backscatter intensity, as suggested by Bauer, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Nonoguchi to adjust the computed quantity dependent on the divergence of the electron beam at the entrance of the electron optic arrangement towards a desired value by applying a bias voltage to the Wehnelt in order to optimize the focal spot size on the x-ray target, as desired by Nonoguchi and as taught by Bauer.
With respect to claim 2, Nonoguchi further discloses that the quantity indicative of a width of the electron beam is a cross-sectional intensity profile of the electron beam (Figs.6 and 8).
With respect to claim 3, Nonoguchi further discloses that the arrangement for determining a quantity indicative of a width of the electron beam is configured to determine a cross-sectional intensity profile or a width of the electron beam at a location downstream from the electron optical arrangement (at the focal spot, based on electron backscatter detected by detector 16).
With respect to claim 4, Nonoguchi further discloses that the arrangement for determining a quantity indicative of a width of the electron beam is configured to:
g) scan the electron beam over an edge separating two regions having different abilities to reflect and/or absorb electrons (different materials of target 17); and
h) detect, using a sensor 16, a quantity indicative of an intensity of at least a part of the electron beam as a function of electron beam location relative to the edge (see section S3, starting in col.14, particularly pars.0039-0041 and 0043-0045; Figs.5 and 6; or see section S4, starting in col.17, particularly pars.0046-0050).
With respect to claim 5, Nonoguchi further discloses that the sensor 16 is an electron backscatter sensor (par.0019).
With respect to claim 6, Nonoguchi further discloses that the arrangement for determining a quantity indicative of a width of the electron beam includes an aperture 16 and means 16 for measuring a fraction of a current emitted from the cathode that passes through the aperture (the backscatter detector 16 has an aperture, and the backscattered electrons are a fraction of the current emitted from the cathode that passes through the aperture).
With respect to claim 7, Nonoguchi further discloses that the controller is configured to compute the quantity dependent on a divergence of the electron beam at an entrance of the electron optic arrangement based on the quantity indicative of a width of the electron beam determined for at least two different focus settings of the electron optic arrangement (Figs.5-8 and corresponding descriptions, controller determines focal spot size, see at least pars.0044-0046).
With respect to claim 8, Nonoguchi further discloses that the cathode 21 includes a LaB6 crystal (col.7, lines 34-37).
With respect to claim 9, Nonoguchi further discloses that the quantity dependent on a divergence of the electron beam at the entrance of the electron optic arrangement is a spot size.
Regarding claim 10, Nonoguchi discloses a method (Fiugs.5-8) for optimizing an x-ray source (Fig.2):
the x-ray source having:
a) an electron source 11 for providing an electron beam, the electron source 11 including a cathode 21, a Wehnelt 22, and an anode 23; and an electron optic arrangement 12-15 configured to deflect and focus the electron beam towards a target 17 for generation of x-ray radiation;
the method including:
b) determining a quantity indicative of a width of the electron beam (spot size, pars.0044-0045);
c) computing a quantity dependent on a divergence of the electron beam at an entrance of the electron optic arrangement 12-15 based on the quantity indicative of the width of the electron beam (spot size, Figs.5-8: the measured intensity of the backscattered x-rays at the detector 16 as the electron beam is swept across the three target materials is indicative of the size and shape of the focal spot (see Figs.6 and 8, and corresponding descriptions), which is inherently dependent on all upstream characteristics, including the divergence of the electron beam at an entrance of the electron optics); and
d) applying an adjustment such that the quantity dependent on the divergence of the electron beam at the entrance of the electron optic arrangement is adjusted towards a desired value (applies corrective currents to the electron optics in order to optimize the computed quantities, Figs.5-8).
Further regarding claim 10, Nonoguchi does not specifically disclose applying a bias voltage to the Wehnelt in order to adjust the computed quantity to the desired value.
Nonoguchi does optimize the bias voltage to the Wehnelt in order to minimize the size of the electron beam crossover (col.13, lines 15-19 and 29-33), where the crossover point of the electron beam is the well-known determinant of the electron beam divergence at the entrance of the electron optics in electron guns that use Wehnelt electrodes, and the whole point of Wehnelt electrodes is to be able to provide ready adjustment of the crossover point by providing a bias voltage relative to the electron emitter (see Conclusion).
However, Nonoguchi does not specifically disclose how the bias voltage applied to the Wehnelt is optimized.
Bauer teaches the practice of adjusting the bias voltage of a Wehnelt 44 relative to an electron emitter 42 such that the crossover point of the x-ray beam 60 is placed for optimal beam divergence at the entrance of the electron optics 52 (middle of p.9). Specifically, the focal spot on the x-ray target 72 is considered to be optimally sized when the measured intensity of x-rays (detectors 87) or measured intensity of backscattered electrons (detectors 90) from the x-ray target 72 reaches a predetermined intensity value (p.13, 1st paragraph after the heading “5. Further embodiments”).
Since Nonoguchi already measures the focal spot as a function of electron backscatter intensity and selects the correction parameters of the electron optics based on the measured intensities, then it falls within the level of routine experimentation to also adjust the Wehnelt bias voltage based on an electron backscatter intensity, as recommended by Bauer, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Nonoguchi to adjust the computed quantity dependent on the divergence of the electron beam at the entrance of the electron optic arrangement towards a desired value by applying a bias voltage to the Wehnelt in order to optimize the focal spot size on the x-ray target, as desired by Nonoguchi and as taught by Bauer.
With respect to claim 11, Nonoguchi further discloses that the quantity indicative of a width of the electron beam is a cross-sectional intensity profile of the electron beam (Figs.6 and 8).
With respect to claim 12, Nonoguchi further discloses that the arrangement for determining a quantity indicative of a width of the electron beam is configured to determine a cross-sectional intensity profile or a width of the electron beam at a location downstream from the electron optical arrangement (at the focal spot, based on electron backscatter detected by detector 16).
With respect to claim 13, Nonoguchi further discloses that the arrangement for determining a quantity indicative of a width of the electron beam is configured to:
g) scan the electron beam over an edge separating two regions having different abilities to reflect and/or absorb electrons (different materials of target 17); and
h) detect, using a sensor 16, a quantity indicative of an intensity of at least a part of the electron beam as a function of electron beam location relative to the edge (see section S3, starting in col.14, particularly pars.0039-0041 and 0043-0045; Figs.5 and 6; or see section S4, starting in col.17, particularly pars.0046-0050).
With respect to claim 15, Nonoguchi further discloses that the quantity dependent on a divergence of the electron beam at the entrance of the electron optic arrangement is a spot size.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonoguchi and Bauer, as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Ishihara (US 2015/0117617 A1).
With respect to claim 14, neither Nonoguchi nor Bauer disclose specific bias voltages of the Wehnelt electrodes, though the skilled artisan is well aware of the fact that the specific voltage range depends on at least the tube voltage, as well as on the geometry and spatial relationships between the electron emitter and the Wehnelt electrode.
Ishihara teaches the practice of providing a bias voltage of about -5kV to 0V to a Wehnelt electrode (grid cup) with respect to the cathode voltage in order to provide the desired sharpening of the focal spot (par.0049; also see Figs.3-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the bias voltage of Nonoguchi to fall within the range of +/-10kV with respect to the cathode, as suggested by Ishihara, subject to tube voltage and geometric constraints.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (cited in attached PTO-892 unless otherwise specified):
US patent documents to Hemberg et al. teach an aperture 54 over which the electron beam is swept in order to determine the electron beam width for subsequent optimization;
US patent documents to Kozascek et al. teach adjusting the bias voltage of a Wehnelt electrode 151 relative to a cathode 17 in order to adjust the divergence of the electron beam as desired (Figs.15-16);
US patent to Katsap teaches the practice of providing a bias voltage to a Wehnelt electrode 104 of several hundred volts relative to the calthode 102 (col.4, lines 8-10); Katsap further recognizes the various aspects that influence the effectiveness of the bias voltage (col.4, lines 10-21); and Katsap further recognizes that the lower the bias voltage relative to the cathode, the weaker the lensing effect, and thus effects the divergence of the electron beam as it leaves the electron gun (col.4, lines 52-55); and
The remaining cited prior art teach various aspects of electron beam focusing with Wehnelt-style electrodes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R ARTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2485. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6:30pm.
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 on 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.
THOMAS R. ARTMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/THOMAS R ARTMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884