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 6/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the central axis 16b of the cathode cup 16 of the central electron gun 12 is mislabeled in Fig.3 according to the corresponding disclosure. In pars.0049-0051 of the originally-filed specification, the central axes 14b, 15b, and 16b all coincide. This is evident from the apparent symmetry of the cathode cup 16, storage slot 15, and filament 14 of the central electron gun 12 in Fig.3. Therefore, the label for the central axis 16b of the cathode cup 16 corresponding to the central electron gun 12 needs to be moved to coincide with axes 14b and 15b.
It would also be greatly appreciated if Fig.3 included a view analogous to Fig.2(b) for clarifying the inventive aspects of the disclosure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite at least because of either or both of:
a) the various phrases “at a center…in the width direction thereof” are very confusing because they appear to contradict the longitudinal directions. The width direction is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, according to the drawings. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the meets and bounds of the claim (deleting all but the last recitation of the phrase would clear things up considerably);
b) the language of the last 4 lines of claim 1 appears to exclude the embodiment shown in Fig.3, where the central axes of the focusing cup 16b, filament 14b, and storage slot 15b all coincide (pars.0049-0051 of the originally-filed specification). The last limitation of claim 1 states that the central electron gun 12 has “a central axis of the focusing cup along a longitudinal direction at a center of the focusing cup in a width direction that is displaced from the central axis of the filament”. While awkward, it appears that the language requires that the central axis 16b of the focusing cup 16 for the central electron gun 12 is displaced from the central axis 14b of the filament 14 of the central electron gun 12. This does not appear to be true of Fig.3, despite the incorrect labelling of the central axis 16b of the focusing cup 16 of the central electron gun 12 (see at least pars.0049-0051 and the above drawing objection).
Therefore, the confusing language of the claim, combined with the conflicting aspects between the claims, the specification, and the drawings, leave the skilled artisan unable to ascertain the meets and bounds of the claim.
Examiner’s Note: in the interest of expediting prosecution, the Examiner shall assume that the last limitation of claim 1 requires that the central axis of the filament 14 of the central electron gun 12 is offset from the central axis of the cathode 10. This interpretation encompasses both embodiments. As stated in at least pars.0040-0041 and 0049-0051 of the originally-filed disclosure (and consistently illustrated across Figs.2-4), the trajectory N of the large positive ions M are attracted to the central axis of the cathode 10 without meaningful deviation or influence of the individual electron gun configurations. Throughout the specification, it is clear that the inventive concept lies in the displacement of the central filament relative to the central axis of the cathode assembly so that the central filament is not bombarded by the positive ions.
Claim 2 is rejected under this paragraph by virtue of its dependence upon claim 1, thus incorporating the indefinite subject matter, and further for failing to remedy any of the noted deficiencies. The claim is further rejected under this paragraph at least because the apparent lack of punctuation makes it unclear what components are supposed to be parallel and what is supposed to be displaced in the arrangement direction and from which other structure. It is also unclear which, or all, of the electron guns is/are being modified. As a result, the meets and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
Claim 3 is rejected under this paragraph by virtue of its dependence upon claim 2, thus incorporating the indefinite subject matter, and further for failing to remedy any of the noted deficiencies. The claim is further rejected under this paragraph at least because it is unclear which electron gun is intended to be modified.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furbee (US 4,685,118).
Regarding claim 1, Furbee discloses an x-ray tube (Figs.1 and 14-16), including:
a) an anode 22 including a target layer 27 that emits an x-ray when an electron beam is incident thereon; and
b) a cathode 24 in which three electron guns are arranged in parallel with each other (Fig.14), each including a filament 48, 50, 52 which emits electrons, a storage slot which stores the filament (not labeled, Figs.14 and 15), and a focusing cup 42, 44, 46 which focuses the electrons emitted from the filament 48, 50, 52 toward the target layer 27 as an electron beam; where
c) the three electron guns are constituted by a central electron gun which opposes the anode 22 and having electron guns located on respective sides thereof while interposing the central electron gun therebetween (Figs.14 and 15), and the focusing cup 42, 44, 46 of each of the electron guns is formed to be continuous to the respective slot and the filament 48, 50, 52 is disposed to project out from the storage slot to the focusing cup 42, 44, 46 (Fig.14); and where
d) the central electron gun includes a central axis of the filament 50 along a longitudinal direction at a center of the filament 50 in a width direction thereof and a central axis of the storage slot along a longitudinal axis direction at a center of the storage slot in a width direction thereof, which coincide with each other (the central axes of the filament 50 and corresponding slot coincide, Figs.14 and 15), and a central axis of the cathode 40 along a longitudinal direction at a center of the cathode 40 in a width direction thereof that is displaced from the central axis of the filament 50 (Figs.14-16: the central axis of the cathode 40 in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axes of the filaments is at the junction between facets 41a and 41b, Figs.14 and 15).
With respect to claim 2, Furbee further discloses that the central axis of the focusing cup 44 is parallel to the central axis of the filament 50 (Figs.14 and 15).
With respect to claim 3, Furbee further discloses that the central axis of the cathode 40 is distant from the central axis of the filament 50 by half a width or more of the filament 50 (Figs.14 and 15).
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanagami (US 2015/0025284 A1) in view of Kuribayashi (US 2007/0092064 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kanagami discloses an x-ray tube (Figs.1-3), including:
a) an anode 8 including a target layer that emits an x-ray when an electron beam is incident thereon; and
b) a cathode 7 in which three electron guns are arranged in parallel with each other (Figs.2-3), each including a filament 71, 72, 73 which emits electrons, a storage slot which stores the filament (not labeled, Fig.2), and a focusing cup 70a, 70b, 70c which focuses the electrons emitted from the filament 71, 72, 73 toward the target layer as an electron beam; where
c) the three electron guns are constituted by a central electron gun which opposes the anode 8 and having electron guns located on respective sides thereof while interposing the central electron gun therebetween (Figs.2-3), and the focusing cup 70a, 70b, 70c of each of the electron guns is formed to be continuous to the respective slot and the filament 71, 72, 73 is disposed to project out from the storage slot to the focusing cup 70a, 70b, 70c (Fig.2); and where
d) the central electron gun includes a central axis of the filament 71 along a longitudinal direction at a center of the filament 71 in a width direction thereof and a central axis of the storage slot along a longitudinal axis direction at a center of the storage slot in a width direction thereof, which coincide with each other (the central axes of the filament 71 and corresponding slot coincide, Fig.2).
Further regarding claim 1, Kanagami does not specifically disclose that the central axis of the focusing cup 70a along a longitudinal direction at a center of the focusing cup in a width direction thereof that is displaced from the central axis of the filament 71.
Kuribayashi teaches the eccentric placement of a filament 10 within a cathode cup 48, where a central axis of the cathode cup is offset from the coincident central axes of the filament 10 and storage slot 49 (Figs.7-14). The eccentricity E being equal to the radius (half the width) of the filament (par.0062) avoids positive ion bombardment of the filament for improved longevity (pars.0014 and 0017-0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the central electron gun of Kanagami to have the central longitudinal axis of the filament displaced from the central longitudinal axis of the focusing cup in a lateral direction in order to improve the longevity of the filament by avoiding positive ion bombardment, as taught by Kuribayashi.
With respect to claim 2, Kanagami and Kuribayashi both disclose that the central axis of the focusing cup is parallel to the central axis of the filament (Kanagami, Figs.2-3; Kuribayashi, Figs.8-14).
With respect to claim 3, Kuribayashi further teaches that the central axis of the focusing cup is distant from the central axis of the filament by half a width or more of the filament (eccentricity E, Fig.8, equal to about half the width (radius) of the filament: par.0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Kanagami to have the central axis of the focusing cup offset from the central axis of the filament by a half a width or more of the filament in order to improve the longevity of the filament by avoiding positive ion bombardment, as taught by Kuribayashi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US patent documents to M et al., to Kruse, to Lemaitre et al., and to Dowd, each teach a cathode with 3 electron guns where the longitudinal axis of the filament of the central electron gun is offset from the central axis of the cathode; where M et al. (Fig.6), Dowd (Fig.2), and Lemaitre (US 2023/0197397 A1, Figs.5A and 6) each illustrate that the cathode cup for the central electron gun has a central longitudinal axis that is offset from the longitudinal axis of the filament.
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