DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-12, filed 03/25/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, and 13-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art, US 2011/0255664 (Ueda) under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0255664 (Ueda).
Regarding claim 1, Ueda disclose an x-ray source, comprising:
a vacuum enclosure (30);
a plurality field emitters disposed along a line within the vacuum enclosure, each of the field emitter configured to generate an electron beam (15);
an anode disposed within the vacuum enclosure and including a target configured to generate x-rays in response to the electron beams (13); and
a getter extending along the line within the vacuum enclosure (26), wherein the line has a first length between the field emitters (Fig. 1).
Ueda fail to explicitly teach a second length of the getter extends continuously at least 50% of the first length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the getter of Ueda such that the getter extends continuously at least 50% of the first length because increasing the continuous getter in length would have been a predictable design optimization to increase active gettering surface area between the emitters, thereby improving residual gas absorption and maintaining vacuum condition in the region where emitter operation occurs. Adjusting the relative dimensions o the getter with respect to emitter spacing would have been a routine matter of routine optimization to achieve the desired vacuum performance. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Ueda disclose the x-ray source of claim 1, wherein:
the getter comprises a strip getter extending along the line (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Ueda disclose the x-ray source of claim 1, further comprising:
a first support attached to the vacuum enclosure; and
a second support attached to the vacuum enclosure; wherein:
the getter is one of a plurality of strip getters (26);
each of the plurality of strip getters extends along the line within the vacuum enclosure (Fig. 1); and
for each of the strip getters, a first end of the strip getter is attached to the first support and a second end of the strip getter is attached to the second support (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Ueda disclose the x-ray source of claim 1, further comprising:
a shield disposed between the getter and at least one of the anode and the one or more field emitters (21).
Regarding claim 6, Ueda disclose the x-ray source of claim 1, wherein: the getter is disposed in a corner of the vacuum enclosure (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Ueda disclose the x-ray source of claim 1, wherein: the getter contacts a first portion of a surface of a wall of the vacuum enclosure (Fig. 1); and a second portion of the surface of the wall of the vacuum enclosure is free from contacting the getter (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Ueda disclose the x-ray source of claim 13, wherein: the vacuum enclosure includes a first end cap, a second end cap, and a housing; the first getter is disposed on the first end cap; and the second getter is disposed on the second end cap (Fig. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 15, Ueda disclose the x-ray source of claim 13, wherein: at least one of the getters is a strip getter disposed in a coil (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Ueda disclose the x-ray source of claim 13, wherein: at least one of the getters is a strip getter disposed in a helix (Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, Ueda disclose the x-ray source of claim 3, but fail to teach wherein:
each of the first support and the second support includes a number of strip getter attachment locations; and
the number of strip getter attachment locations is greater than a number of the strip getters.
Regarding claim 8, Ueda disclose the x-ray source of claim 7, but fail to teach wherein:
a first region of the vacuum enclosure has a first electric field strength during operation;
a second region of the vacuum enclosure has a second electric field strength that is greater than the first electric field strength; and
regions of the wall of the vacuum enclosure where the getter is not in contact with the wall of the vacuum enclosure are closer to the second region of the vacuum enclosure than regions of the wall of the vacuum enclosure where the getter is in contact with the wall of the vacuum enclosure.
Regarding claim 9, Ueda disclose the x-ray source of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein: a surface of a wall contacting the getter is not polished.
Regarding claim 10, Ueda disclose the x-ray source of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein: the vacuum enclosure includes a first chamber and a second chamber; the first chamber is separated from the second chamber by a wall with at least one opening; the one or more field emitters and the anode are disposed in the first chamber; the getter is disposed in the second chamber; and a configuration of the at least one opening is based on the getter. Claims 11 and 12 depend from claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, Ueda disclose the method of claim 18, but fail to teach wherein: attaching the coil getter to the first end of the vacuum enclosure housing comprises attaching a cage to the first end over the coil getter.
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 13, the best prior art, US 2011/0255664 (Ueda), disclose an x-ray source, comprising:
a vacuum enclosure (Fig. 1, 30);
one or more field emitters disposed along a line within the vacuum enclosure, each field emitter configured to generate an electron beam (15);
an anode disposed within the vacuum enclosure and including a target configured to generate x-rays in response to the electron beams (13);
a plurality of getters (26); wherein:
the vacuum enclosure includes at a first end and a second end (Fig. 1);
the first end and the second end are disposed at opposite ends of the line within the vacuum enclosure (Fig. 1);
a first getter of the getters is disposed at the first end of the vacuum enclosure (Fig. 1); and
a second getter of the getters is disposed at the second end of the vacuum enclosure (Fig. 1).
However, the prior art of record fail to teach the details of the first getter and the second getter comprise coatings on surfaces defining the vacuum enclosure.
Since the prior art fail to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record. Claims 14-16 are allowed by virtue of their dependence.
Regarding claim 17, the best prior art, US 2011/0255664 (Ueda), disclose a method, comprising:
providing a vacuum enclosure housing (30) including a first end and a second end, the first end and the second end disposed at opposite ends of a line within the vacuum enclosure housing (Fig. 1 and 2);
installing one or more field emitters along the line within the vacuum enclosure housing, each field emitter configured to generate an electron beam (15);
installing an anode within the vacuum enclosure housing, the anode including a target configured to generate x-rays in response to the electron beams (13);
attaching a first getter to the first end of the vacuum enclosure housing (26);
attaching a second getter to the second end of the vacuum enclosure housing (26); and
sealing the vacuum enclosure housing, the first end, and the second end to form a vacuum enclosure (Fig. 1 and 2).
However, the prior art of record fail to teach the details of attaching a first getter to a first surface of the vacuum enclosure housing at the first end of the vacuum enclosure housing by welding, brazing, first studs or posts attached to opposite ends of the first getter, a first bar extending through the first getter, or a first cage; attaching a second getter to a second surface of the vacuum enclosure housing at the second end of the vacuum enclosure housing by welding, brazing, second studs or posts attached to opposite ends of the second getter, a second bar extending through the second getter, or a second cage; and sealing the vacuum enclosure housing, the first end, and the second end to form a vacuum enclosure, the first surface and the second surface at least partially defining the vacuum enclosure.
Since the prior art fail to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record. Claims 18-20 are allowed by virtue of their dependence.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
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 DANI FOX whose telephone number is (571)272-3513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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 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.
/DANI FOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights