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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 (“Simulations to the project of a PXR based X-ray source composed of an electron linac and a double-crystal system,” Y. Hayakawa et al. /Nucl. Instr. And Meth. In Phys. Res. B 227(2005) 32–40).
With regards to claim 1, D1 discloses an X-ray generator (Abstract) comprising:
an electron source configured and operable to generate an accelerated electron beam propagating along a first propagation path with a first general propagation direction (pp. 32-24; Fig. 1; electron LINAC generates an electron beam toward a target crystal);
a first crystalline structure arranged in said first propagation path, the first crystalline structure defining a first crystal plane oriented at a predetermined non- zero angle with said first propagation path (pp. 33-36; Fig. 1; first target crystal positioned in the electron beam path, with its crystallographic planes oriented at a non-zero Bragg angle relative to the electron beam direction), the first crystalline structure being configured to transmit said accelerated electron beam therethrough and generate parametric X-ray emission, being first directional emission of a photon flux, along a second propagation path tilted with respect to said first general propagation direction (pp. 33-36; Fig. 1; accelerated electrons pass through the target crystal and generate PXR emitted in a direction determined by the Bragg geometry and angularly displaced from the direction of the electron beam), and
a second crystalline structure located in said second propagation path (Abstract, Fig. 1) and being configured as a monochromator with respect to said parametric X-ray emission (Abstract, pp. 35-38; the double crystal system similar to a monochromator for synchrotron radiation, where the second crystal receives and selectively Bragg reflects PXR generated by the first crystal), the second crystalline structure defining a second crystal plane oriented at said predetermined non-zero angle with respect to said second propagation path (pp. 33-38; the second crystal is positioned so that PXR generated at the first crystal’s Bragg angle is incident upon the corresponding crystallographic planes of the second crystal at the corresponding Bragg angle) to thereby provide second directionality for the parametric X-ray emission, thereby producing a directional output photon flux (pp, 32-38; the second crystal Bragg reflects and transports the PXR along a defined output direction, thereby providing a fixed radiation exit and a directional output X-ray beam).
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 of this title, 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.
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 CFR 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.
Claims 2-6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2 (“Compact and intense parametric x-ray radiation source based on a linear accelerator with cryogenic accelerating and decelerating copper structures.” J. HYUN et al., PHYS. REV. ACCEL. BEAMS 21, 014701 (2018)).
With regards to claims 2-6 and 11, D1 does not teach the electron source as claimed. D2 teaches a parametric X-ray source and method comprising: tuning by rotating the target crystal relative to the incident electron beam (pp. 5-10); an electron source comprising a gun and accelerator (pp. 2); focusing the electron beam onto a predetermined spot size on the target crystal (pp. 7-9; Figs. 14-15); wherein the electron source comprises four quadrupole magnets (pp. 2, and 8-9; Figs. 14-15); and wherein the electron source is controllably operable with predetermined repetition rate of electron beam generation (pp. 2-3). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the teachings of D2 since both are related to the same type of LINAC driven PXR source and such features are part of a complete, workable design for producing and transporting the electron beam to the PXR crystal to predictable provide the accelerated, focused, and periodically generated electron beam required by D1. In addition, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 and D2 with the claimed spot size in order to confine the electron beam to the useful near surface region and reduce self absorption.
Claims 7, 8, 10, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
With regards to claims 7 and 8, D1 does not teach a stack of multiple crystals and the claimed thicknesses. However, since such a modification was already known, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with a stack of multiple crystals to permit generating radiation from multiple crystals using the same electron beam to thereby increase the useable photon output while reducing self absorption, electron scattering, and crystal heating.
With regards to claim 10, D1 does not teach the claimed configuration. However, such a modification would have been known and considered obvious since the claimed configuration permits radiation generated along substantially the entire crystal length to escape without absorption, thereby increasing PXR intensity. Therefore, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed arrangement.
With regards to claims 12, 13, and 16, D1 teaches wherein RF guns were known (pp. 32), but does not teach a pulsed thermionic RF gun operating with the claimed repetition rates or maximal average current. Nevertheless, such a modification would have been known as an obvious substitution since it would provide a compact, controllable source of accelerated electron bunches for an RF linear accelerator. In addition, selecting a particular repetition range would have been considered routine optimization of average beam current, target heating, and desired photon output.
With regards to claim 14, D1 does not teach the claimed dimensions. However, since compact generators were already known, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed dimensions as a routine miniaturization of known elements in order to decrease the facility footprint and therefore reduce construction cost.
With regards to claim 15, D1 does not teach the claimed components. However, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed OTR system to permit alignment and real time monitoring of the position and width of the electron beam in order to maintain the desired PXR output.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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:
Prior art does not teach the photon flux of the parametric X-ray emission is above 1.5 x 1010 for photon energies below 25 keV and for any one of the following materials: tungsten, molybdenum, copper, silicon; or the photon flux of the parametric X-ray emission is above 1.1 x 1011 for photon energies below 25 keV for graphite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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 on 571-272-3995. 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights