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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 11, 13, and 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 6, 13, 14 include an unnecessary comma after the word “and”
Claim 11 includes an unnecessary “and” in the listing of limitations
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10 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.
The phrase “wherein the thickness of the collimator is determined corresponding to the resolution of an X-ray image to be obtained” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “wherein the thickness of the collimator is determined corresponding to the resolution of an X-ray image to be obtained” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The phrase is a relative term because the thickness is relative to the variable resolution with no specification on the degree of relation which thus renders the claim indefinite.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Samant et al. US 2015/0311023.
Regarding claim 1, Samant discloses an X-ray generating apparatus (fig. 1) comprising: a field emitting part (#130) having a plurality of electron beam emitting regions arranged (fig. 1); an X-ray generating part (fig. 1 anode) generating X-rays (fig. 1 grey arrows) by collision with electrons (fig. 1 black arrows) emitted from the field emitting part (#130); and, a collimator (#13) transmitting X-rays generated from the X-ray generating part in a specific direction (fig. 1), wherein a plurality of through-holes (fig. 1 areas between collimator pillars) are arranged on the collimator to transmit the X- rays in a specific direction (fig. 1), and the X-ray is blocked in a region other than the through-hole (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Samant discloses wherein the through-hole of the collimator is arranged corresponding to the electron beam emitting region of the field emitting part (fig. 1; the space between the collimator pillars corresponds to the location of #130).
Regarding claim 3, Samant discloses wherein an angle of an inner surface of the through-hole of the collimator is perpendicular to an upper surface or a lower surface of the collimator (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Samant discloses wherein the collimator determines a transmission direction of the X-ray according to the angle of the inner surface of the through-hole (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Samant discloses wherein the collimator determines the angle of the inner surface of the through-hole so that the transmission direction of the X-ray is perpendicular to an upper surface or a lower surface of the collimator (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Samant discloses wherein the through-hole of the collimator includes: an upper region facing a subject (fig. 1); and, a lower region facing the X-ray generating part (fig. 1), and wherein an area of the upper region and an area of the lower region are equal to each other (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Samant discloses wherein the collimator is placed on the X-ray generating part while being contact with the X-ray generating part (fig. 1 the collimator is in contact with the anode and filter).
Regarding claim 9, Samant discloses wherein the through-holes of the collimator are arranged in matrix form (para. 12; 3x3 matrix), and wherein the spacing between the through-holes is the same (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Samant discloses wherein the X-ray generating part includes a transmission type anode (fig. 1 anode; the anode being a transmission type anode is implicit in the function of generating x-rays).
Regarding claim 14, Samant discloses an X-ray system (abstract, para. 0025 “the unit can be used as a portable electron or X-ray scanner or an integral part of an existing detection system”) comprising: an X-ray generating apparatus generating and emitting X-rays (fig. 1); and, an X-ray detection device detecting X-rays emitted from the X-ray generating apparatus (abstract, para. 0025; implicit in a detection system), wherein the X-ray generating apparatus includes: a field emitting part (#130) having a plurality of electron beam emitting regions arranged (fig. 1); an X-ray generating part (fig. 1 anode) generating X-rays (fig. 1 grey arrows) by collision with electrons (fig. 1 black arrows) emitted from the field emitting part (#130); and, a collimator (#13) transmitting X-rays generated from the X-ray generating part in a specific direction (fig. 1), wherein a plurality of through-holes (fig. 1 areas between collimator pillars) are arranged on the collimator to transmit the X- rays in a specific direction (fig. 1), and the X-ray is blocked in a region other than the through-hole (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Samant discloses wherein the X-ray generating apparatus emits X-rays in a direction perpendicular to a surface through the collimator (fig. 1).
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 (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 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samant et al. US 2015/0311023 in view of Tamura et al. US 2014/0241492.
Regarding claim 8, Samant fails to teach a transmission window disposed between the collimator and the X-ray generating part to transmit the X-ray, wherein a lower surface of the transmission window is in contact with the X-ray generating part, and wherein an upper surface of the transmission window is in contact with the collimator.
Tamura teaches a transmission window (#6b) disposed between the collimator (#7, 8) and the X-ray generating part (#6a) to transmit the X-ray (para. 0030), wherein a lower surface of the transmission window is in contact with the X-ray generating part (figs. 1C, 3), and wherein an upper surface of the transmission window is in contact with the collimator (figs. 1C, 3) for the purpose of increased cooling capacity (para. 0037).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a transmission window disposed between the collimator and the X-ray generating part to transmit the X-ray, wherein a lower surface of the transmission window is in contact with the X-ray generating part, and wherein an upper surface of the transmission window is in contact with the collimator as taught by Tamura in the apparatus of Samant for the purpose of increased cooling capacity.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samant et al. US 2015/0311023 in view of Appleby et al. US 2003/0235272.
Regarding claim 11, Samant does not explicitly disclose wherein the collimator includes: a first collimator disposed adjacent to the X-ray generating part and having a plurality of first through-holes arranged therein; and at least one second collimator disposed above the first collimator and having a plurality of second through-holes arranged therein; and wherein the second through-hole is arranged to correspond to the first through-hole; however, it has been judiciarily determined that duplication of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). Duplication of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Further manufacturing of collimators using a laminated, stacked structure is known in the art (see Appleby fig. 41 para. 0320, 0326-0338). Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the duplication of parts is not of patentable significance.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samant et al. US 2015/0311023.
Regarding claim 13, Samant teaches a semiconductor substrate (fig. 1 substrate) including a plurality of electron beam emitting regions (fig. 1 regions with #130) and electron beam non-emitting regions (fig. 1 regions without #130); wherein the field emitting part includes: an insulating layer (fig. 2l SiO2) disposed above the semiconductor substrate (fig. 2l wafer) and appropriate electrical connections for the electron emitter (electrodes) are implicit in the emitter (#130).
Samant does not explicitly disclose a bottom electrode disposed below the semiconductor substrate; a gate electrode disposed on the insulating layer; and, a top electrode disposed on a gate electrode located in the electron beam non-emitting region, however, it has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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)272-2995. The fax number for the organization where this application or processing 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.
/RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights