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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12096541 (hereinafter USPN ‘541). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the narrower claims of USPN ‘541 anticipate the broader claims of the instant application.
USPN ‘541 claims a two-phase cooling system for an X-ray voltage generator, the two-phase cooling system comprising (claim 1, preamble): a heat sink block (claim 1, par. 1 in the body of the claim) including a material containing a polymer (par. 2), wherein the heat sink block spatially surrounds a cooling duct loop (par. 1), wherein the cooling duct loop is configured to be at least partially filled with a working medium (par. 1), and wherein the cooling duct loop is configured to act as an oscillating heat pipe (par. 1), and wherein a shortest diffusion route between the cooling duct loop and a permeable surface of the heat sink block is fluid-tight (claim 5); and a heat sink configured to dissipate heat from a heat source of the X-ray voltage generator (claim 1, preamble and par. 4).
Claim 3-4 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of USPN ‘541 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Skillicorn et al. (US 5682412; hereinafter Skillicorn).
Regarding claim 3, USPN ‘541 claims claim 1.
However, USPN ‘541 fails to claim an X-ray high-voltage generator for provision of a high voltage, the X-ray high-voltage generator comprising: the cooling system; and a circuit arrangement with at least one power-electronic circuitry part, the at least one power-electronic circuitry part configured to form the heat source in operation, wherein the at least one power-electronic circuitry part is thermally coupled to the cooling system to dissipate heat from the heat source at the heat sink.
Skillicorn teaches an X-ray high-voltage generator for provision of a high voltage, the X-ray high-voltage generator (col. 9:38-10:22) comprising: the cooling system (with 216); and a circuit arrangement with at least one power-electronic circuitry part (206-210), the at least one power-electronic circuitry part configured to form the heat source in operation (col. 11:21-25), wherein the at least one power-electronic circuitry part is thermally coupled to the cooling system to dissipate heat from the heat source at the heat sink (col. 11:21-36).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to conclude that the invention defined in the claim of the instant application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of USPN ‘541 with the teaching of Skillicorn, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for better removing heat and safety (Skillicorn: col. 2:44-49 and 11:21-36).
Regarding claim 4, Skillicorn teaches an X-ray tube assembly (with 10), comprising: the X-ray voltage generator (col. 9:38-10:22; col. 11:21-25); and an X-ray tube (10) configured to generate X-rays using the voltage.
Regarding claim 17, USPN ‘541 claims the cooling duct loop (claim 1, par. 1). Skillicorn teaches an auxiliary heat source (217: voltage regulator components) thermally coupled to the cooling components (216).
Claims 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of USPN ‘541 and Skillicorn as applied to claims 3-4 above, and further in view of Deucher et al. (US 5610968; hereinafter Deucher).
USPN ‘541 as modified above suggests claims 3-4.
However, USPN ‘541 fails to claim a computed tomography device, comprising: the X-ray high-voltage generator; the X-ray tube assembly; and a gantry having a rotating part and a stationary part, wherein the cooling system is arranged on the gantry.
Deucher teaches a computed tomography device (title), comprising: the X-ray high-voltage generator (24); the X-ray tube assembly (22 and 24); and a gantry having a rotating part and a stationary part (figs. 1-2), wherein the cooling system (46) is arranged on the gantry (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to conclude that the invention defined in the claim of the instant application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of USPN ‘541 with the teaching of Deucher, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for removing more waste heat.
Claims 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of USPN ‘541 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Silvano de Sousa et al. (US 2017/0167799; hereinafter Silvano).
USPN ‘541 claims claim 1.
However, USPN ‘541 fails to claim wherein the heat source is part of a duct wall of the heat sink block, the duct wall configured to enclose the working medium in the cooling duct loop, and wherein the working medium is electrically insulating.
Silvano teaches wherein the heat source (“component”) is part of a duct wall of the heat sink block (fig. 4), the duct wall configured to enclose the working medium in the cooling duct loop (10), and wherein the working medium is electrically insulating (par. 86).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to conclude that the invention defined in the claim of the instant application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of USPN ‘541 with the teaching of Silvano, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for a more robust component that can withstand high thermal stress (Silvano: par. 9).
Claims 11-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of USPN ‘541 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alahyari et al. (US 2020/0398385; hereinafter Alahyari).
Regarding claim 11, USPN ‘541 claims claim 1.
However, USPN ‘541 fails to claim a liquid reservoir connected to the cooling duct loop, the liquid reservoir containing an additional quantity of the working medium.
Alahyari teaches a liquid reservoir connected to the cooling duct loop, the liquid reservoir containing an additional quantity of the working medium (par. 30: for liquid insertion).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to conclude that the invention defined in the claim of the instant application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of USPN ‘541 with the teaching of Alahyari, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for a more stable system (Alahyari: par. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Alahyari teaches wherein the liquid reservoir is adjacent to the cooling duct loop (par. 30: for liquid insertion).
Claims 13-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of USPN ‘541 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gruss (WO 2014/202474 A1).
Regarding claim 13, USPN ‘541 claims claim 1. USPN ‘541 further claims the cooling duct loop (claim 1, par. 1).
However, USPN ‘541 fails to claim a surface expansion element enclosed by the cooling ducts.
Gruss teaches a surface expansion element (fig. 7:15) enclosed by the cooling ducts (12).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to conclude that the invention defined in the claim of the instant application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of USPN ‘541 with the teaching of Gruss, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for improving heat exchange.
Regarding claim 14, Gruss teaches wherein the surface expansion element is at least one of a spiral spring or a cooling fin (15).
Claims 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of USPN ‘541 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2016/0294025; hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claim 15, USPN ‘541 claims claim 1. USPN ‘541 necessarily includes wherein a portion of the cooling duct loop (claim 1, par. 1) adjacent to the heat source (pars. 3-4) has a cross-section.
However, USPN ‘541 fails to claim a tapered cross-section.
Choi teaches a tapered cross-section (par. 50).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to conclude that the invention defined in the claim of the instant application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of USPN ‘541 with the teaching of Choi, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for easier installation (Choi: par. 50).
Regarding claim 16, USPN ‘541 necessarily includes wherein a portion of the cooling duct loop adjacent to the heat sink (claim 1, par. 1) has a cross-section. Choi teaches a tapered cross-section (par. 50).
Claims 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of USPN ‘541 and Skillicorn as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Wikipedia (“Voltage regulator”).
Regarding claim 18, USPN ‘541 as modified above suggests claim 17. Skillicorn further teaches wherein the auxiliary heat source is at least one of a component (217: voltage regulator components).
However, USPN ‘541 fails to claim an inductive component.
Wikipedia teaches an inductive component (p. 4: “constant-voltage transformer” for a voltage regulator).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to conclude that the invention defined in the claim of the instant application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of USPN ‘541 with the teaching of Wikipedia, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for “good surge suppression” (Wikipedia).
Regarding claim 19, recitations (i.e., wherein the auxiliary heat source is configured to be switched off in response to a startup of the two-phase cooling system) with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a previous claim satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Therefore, these claim limitations do not have patentable weight.
Regarding claim 20, recitations (i.e., wherein the auxiliary heat source is configured to be switched on and switched off alternately with an operation of the heat source) with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior claim satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Therefore, these claim limitations do not have patentable weight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 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. Claim 21 is allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 8, its dependent claims, and claim 21, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest a two-phase cooling system for an X-ray voltage generator, the two-phase cooling system including: an inlay inside the cooling duct loop, the inlay configured such that the working medium flows around the inlay, in combination with all of the other recitations in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Jun 11, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 and double patenting issues due to USPN ‘541, since Applicant has not argued why the claims of USPN ‘541 are patentably distinct from claim 1 of the instant application, the claim remains rejected.
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 Chih-Cheng Kao whose telephone number is (571)272-2492. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
/Chih-Cheng Kao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights