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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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(s) 1-4, 6, 10, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baumann (US 20090220054 A1; September 3, 2009).
Regarding claim 1, Baumann teaches adjusting device for an X-ray optics in an X-ray fluorescence analyzer, (Paragraph 37, lens positioning apparatus 16. Paragraphs 33, 34) which comprises an X-ray source for generating X-ray radiation which is focused with the X-ray optics onto a measurement object (Paragraph 32, includes an X-ray source 12 constituted by an X-ray tube. Paragraph 33, An X-ray beam generated within the X-ray source 12 … focuses the X-ray beam onto a tiny spot on the sample 20) and with a detector, by means of which X-ray fluorescence radiation reflected by the measurement object is detectable, (Paragraph 33, The detector 24 collects the X-rays emitted back from the sample 20)
wherein
- a mounting frame is provided which (Figure 1 Element 42. Paragraph 37, The positioning apparatus 16 includes an X-ray shielding component 40, a positioning component 42 ) accommodates a first frame which is displaceable in a first direction relative to the mounting frame and with a second frame which is guided on the first frame so as to be displaceable in a second direction, the first and second directions of the displacement movement of the frames differing from one another, (Figure 2 Element 60 and 62. Paragraph 44, the first translation stage 60 and the second translation stage 62 form an xy translation stage)
- a through opening is provided, which extends through the mounting frame (Figure 1 Element 42. Paragraph 42 Each of the positioning stages 60, 62, 64, 68 has a central X-ray passage 68, 70, 72, 74, respectively, through which the tubular member 50 extends. Paragraph 14, an internal X-ray passage)
- the X-ray optics is arrangeable in the through opening (Paragraph 39, The X-ray lens (not shown in FIGS. 2 to 4) is fixedly mounted inside a tube member 50.).
Regarding claim 2, Baumann teaches adjusting device according to claim 1. Baumann further teaches wherein the X-ray optics arranged in the through-opening is displaceable by the frames in a plane perpendicular to a beam axis of the X-ray optics arranged in the through-opening (Paragraph 44 – the first translation stage 60 and the second translation stage 62 form an xy translation stage, Accordingly, the first translation stage 60 has a first axis of translation, namely the x axis which in FIG. 2 runs perpendicular to the axis of the tubular member 50; Paragraph 47, 48).
Regarding claim 3, Baumann teaches adjusting device according to claim 1. Baumann further teaches wherein the X-ray optics is displaceable in the X- and/or Y-direction by the first and/or second frame (Paragraph 42, 43) and the beam axis of the X-ray optics preferably lies in a Z-axis (Paragraph 33 - X-ray beam generated within the X-ray source 12 and indicated by reference numeral 26 passes along an optical axis 30; Paragraph 44, 47).
Regarding claim 4, Baumann teaches adjusting device according to claim 1. Baumann further teaches wherein a first linear guide is provided between the mounting frame and the first frame and a second linear guide is provided between the first frame and the second frame (Paragraph 42,-43), which are each adjustable by an actuator ( Paragraph 43-44- By means of the respective knobs 78, 80, the first and second translation stage 60, 62 can be actuated independently from each other.).
Regarding claim 6, Baumann teaches adjusting device according to claim 4. Baumann further wherein the first actuator comprises an adjusting screw which is provided preloaded by a compression spring between the first frame and a first flange which is fixed to the mounting frame (Paragraph 43 - For each of the two translation stages 60, 62, a separate fine-pitch adjustment screw with an associated knob 78, 80 and spring returnment, respectively, is provided.; Paragraph 18, 44)
Regarding claim 10, Baumann teaches adjusting device according to claim 4. Baumann further wherein the linear guide is designed as a ball guide or sliding guide (Paragraph 43 - Each of the two translation stages 60, 62 includes a double-dovetail guide; Paragraph 44- first translation stage 60 and second translation stage 62 form an xy translation stage.)
Regarding claim 19, Baumann teaches X-ray fluorescence analyzer (Paragraph 32 an X-ray spectrometer 10) with an X-ray source for generating X-ray radiation and (Paragraph 32 The spectrometer 10 includes an X-ray source 12 constituted by an X-ray tube. Paragraph 33 X-ray beam generated within the X-ray source 12) with X-ray optics for focusing the X-ray radiation onto a measurement object, (Paragraph 33 An X-ray (or Kumakhov) lens 28 to be aligned by means of the positioning apparatus 16 in relation to the X-ray source 12 and in relation to the optical axis 30 focuses the X-ray beam onto a tiny spot on the sample 20) having a detector for detecting an X-ray fluorescence radiation reflected by the measurement object and (Paragraph 33 The detector 24 collects the X-rays emitted back from the sample 20 and outputs a spectrum signal indicative of the chemical elements included in the sample 20) having a data processing device for detecting and evaluating the X-ray fluorescence radiation, (Paragraph 5 The detector detects the X-rays emitted back from the sample and generates an output signal that can for example be spectrally analysed to determine the chemical elements included in the sample) wherein the X-ray optics is alignable with respect to the X-ray source by means of an adjusting device according to claim 1 (Paragraph 33 An X-ray (or Kumakhov) lens 28 to be aligned by means of the positioning apparatus 16 in relation to the X-ray source 12).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US 20090220054 A1; September 3, 2009).
Regarding claim 5, Baumann teaches adjusting device according to claim 1. Baumann further wherein the first actuator for controlling a displacement movement of the first frame to the mounting frame and the second actuator for controlling a displacement movement of the first frame to the second frame are aligned to a common operating side (Paragraph 18, 43-44).
Baumann does not explicitly state that the actuators are aligned to a common side; however, it would have been obvious to rearrange the location of the actuators to coincide at a common side. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US 20090220054 A1; September 3, 2009) in view of Dittmer (US 20070257181 A1; November 8, 2007).
Regarding claim 7, Baumman teaches adjusting device according to claim 6. Bauman does not teach wherein a friction element is provided between the adjusting screw and the flange.
Dittmer teaches a friction element is provided between the adjusting screw and the flange (Paragraph 20, a single selectively adjustable friction element is provided for each of the pitch, roll, and yaw adjustments of the mount; Paragraph 106, 108, Friction washer 269d, friction screw 269c).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation in to allow for increased precision when making adjustments by resisting unintended movement.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US 20090220054 A1; September 3, 2009) in view of Hodge (US 20130008268 A1; January 10, 2013).
Regarding claim 8, Baumann does not teach wherein the second actuator comprises an adjusting screw and an adjusting member, by means of which a 90° deflection of an adjusting movement of the adjusting screw is controllable and the adjusting member is arranged preloaded relative to the first frame by a compression spring and is fastenable to the second frame.
Hodge teaches the second actuator comprises an adjusting screw and an adjusting member, by means of which a 90 deflection of an adjusting movement of the adjusting screw is controllable and the adjusting member is arranged preloaded relative to the first frame by a compression spring and is fastenable to the second frame (Paragraph 16, 17, 18, As the drive head moves it will push the moveable element 14 outwardly at 90 degrees relative to the center axis B. Paragraph 19).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation in to allow for increased precision when making adjustments by resisting unintended movement.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US 20090220054 A1; September 3, 2009) in view of Hodge (US 20130008268 A1; January 10, 2013) in view of Nunnally (US 6016230 A; January 18, 2000).
Regarding claim 9, Bauman does not teach wherein the second flange, which is fastened to the second frame, has a clamping device for securing the position of the adjusting screw of the second actuator, in particular by friction.
Nunnally teaches wherein the second flange, which is fastened to the second frame, has a clamping device for securing the position of the adjusting screw of the second actuator, in particular by friction (Column 1 lines 53-56, Column 3 lines 2-9) . Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation that would allow adjustment screws to be secured once a desired position is set.
Claim(s) 11-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US 20090220054 A1; September 3, 2009) in view of McMurtrie (US 3897119 A; July 29, 1975).
Regarding claim 11, Bauman does not teach wherein the linear guide comprises two guide rods which are aligned in pairs and at a distance from one another and between which bearing rollers are provided which are guided by a cage of linear design.
McMurtrie teaches the linear guide comprises two guide rods which are aligned in pairs and at a distance from one another and ([Abstract] two linear bearings which are each comprised of at least two partially flattened round rods at diagonally opposed corners.)
between which bearing rollers are provided which are guided by a cage of linear design (Claim 1, plurality of rollers disposed in said raceway and contacting the flat portions on said rods; Column 4 lines 5-7 cage or keeper 69 is provided to space the roller bearings 67 and 68, the bearings fitting loosely in holes in the cage).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation that would allow for accurate constrained translation using guide rods.
Regarding claim 12, Bauman does not teach wherein the guide rods arranged in pairs are provided in a recess on the mounting frame and/or first frame and/or second frame and the height of the recess is equal to or greater than the thickness of the two guide rods lying one above the other.
McMurtrie teaches the guide rods arranged in pairs are provided in a recess on the mounting frame and/or first frame and/or second frame and (Column 3 lines 60-65. Column 4 lines 50-52 The flats on two adjacent rods in the same channel)
the height of the recess is equal to or greater than the thickness of the two guide rods lying one above the other (Column 3 lines 63-65. Figures 3-5 shows the two rods in each channel/recess with a rod above another.).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation that would allow for accurate constrained translation using guide rods.
Regarding claim 14, Baumann does not teach wherein at least one pressure pin engages in the recess, which is aligned with an intermediate space between the guide rods assigned to one another in pairs, or in that the at least one pressure pin engages on a pressure element, which bears against the guide rods aligned in pairs, and a bearing play of the linear guide is adjustable by the at least one pressure pin.
McMurtrie teaches wherein at least one pressure pin engages in the recess, which is aligned with an intermediate space between the guide rods assigned to one another in pairs, or in that the at least one pressure pin engages on a pressure element, which bears against the guide rods aligned in pairs, and a bearing play of the linear guide is adjustable by the at least one pressure pin (Column 5 lines 14-16, 22-25 and 37-40. Column 3 lines 36-38).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation that would allow for accurate constrained translation using guide rods.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US 20090220054 A1; September 3, 2009) in view of McMurtrie (US 3897119 A; July 29, 1975) in view of Tylosky (US 20040261554 A1; December 30, 2004).
Regarding claim 13, McMurtrie teaches the guide rods are secured in the recess … (Column 2 lines 58-60,Column 3 Lines 15-19).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation that would for accurate constrained translation using guide rods.
Tylosky teaches rods are secured in the recess by transverse pins which are aligned at right angles to the longitudinal axis of the guide rods (Paragraph 62, Each index pin is configured for securing the locking spline and the guide shafts together. Paragraph 88).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation that would prevent guide rods from moving.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US 20090220054 A1; September 3, 2009) in view of Brooker (US 20200132959 A1; April 30, 2020).
Regarding claim 15, Baumann teaches a connection surface … in the X-ray fluorescence analysis device is provided on the mounting frame (Paragraph 32 spectrometer 10 includes an X-ray source 12 constituted by an X-ray tube. Paragraph 38 component 40 has an outer flange 46 (not shown in FIG. 2) with two screw holes 48 for rigidly attaching the whole positioning apparatus 16 to the shutter 14 (and thus to the X-ray source 12).
Brooker teaches a connection surface with at least one stop surface (Paragraph 7, the housing includes: a contact surface on the housing) for aligning an operating side in the device is provided on the mounting frame (Paragraph 30 The protrusion may be inserted into the slot in a specified orientation, so that the optical element 850 is aligned with the optical axis when the protrusion is inserted into the slot.).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation that would ensure the apparatus is installed in a predetermined and repeatable position.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US 20090220054 A1; September 3, 2009) in view of Pizzo (US 20190011808 A1; January 10, 2019).
Regarding claim 16, Baumann teaches wherein the X-ray optics is … fastened in the through-opening of the second frame by means of a mounting aid and (Paragraph 37, lens mounting component 44 for rigidly coupling the X-ray lens 28 to the positioning component 42. Paragraph 39,).
is displaceable in the X and/or Y direction within the through-opening of the first frame and the mounting frame (Paragraph 44 the first translation stage 60 and the second translation stage 62 form an xy translation stage; Paragraph 42)
Pizzo teaches a component detachably fastened in the through-opening of the second frame by means of a mounting aid (Paragraph 47, support has an aperture 222 configured to removably receive the lens mount adapter 224 or other compatible optical component).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation that would allow for a more versatile arrangement that facilitates installation and removal of components.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US 20090220054 A1; September 3, 2009) in view of Rondeau (US 20050225852 A1; October 13, 2025).
Regarding claim 17, Baumann teaches …along a beam axis of the X-rays (Paragraph 33, X-ray beam generated within the X-ray source 12 and indicated by reference numeral 26 passes along an optical axis 30).
Rondeau teaches a third frame is provided on the second frame, (Paragraph 12, stage assembly 14 of the present invention includes an X-axis plate operable for rectilinear shifting or translation along the X-axis and a Y-axis plate 24 mounted thereon operable for rectilinear translation along the Y-axis. Paragraph 14, the Z-axis plate may be mounted or nested within the Y-axis plate and thereby carried by the XY plate assembly).
which is opposite the first frame, and a third actuator is provided for actuating the third frame, by means of which a distance between the second frame and the third frame is adjustable to the X-ray source along a beam axis of the X-rays (Paragraph 11, A piezoelectric actuator mechanism is interposed between the XY plate assembly and the Z-axis plate for providing the rectilinear shifting of the Z-axis plate.)
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation that would allow for three dimensional positional adjustments.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US 20090220054 A1; September 3, 2009) in view of Peterson (US 9442085 B2; September 13, 2016).
Regarding claim 18, Peterson teaches the X-ray optics is designed as a monocapillary or polycapillary (Column 5 lines 55-57 The X-ray fluorescence instrument preferably comprises at least one of the following: a monocapillary focusing optic, polycapillary focusing optic. Abstract).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation that would allow for the use of specific optics designs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISSELLE GUTIERREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00PM.
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 at 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.
/GISSELLE GUTIERREZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights