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.
Claims 18 and 20 are 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the longitudinal spacer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The longitudinal spacer is introduced in claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 13, 15, 16, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parker (2014/0247921).
Regarding claim 1, Parker discloses an X-ray source configured to generate X-rays by electron impact upon an anode comprising: an electron beam generator for generating a beam of electrons directed along a beam axis (Parker, [0019], electron emitter 3); a pivoting anode assembly comprising a pivot and an anode surface part mounted upon the pivot for receiving electrons in the beam of electrons therewith to generate X-rays (Parker, [0024]; “The anode 11 of x-ray tube 10 in FIG. 1 can deflect or tilt to allow exposure of different regions 15 of the target to the electron beam 7.”); a suspension assembly configured to apply to the pivoting anode assembly a restoring force to urge the pivoting anode assembly towards a quiescent position in which the anode surface part is static relative to the pivot (Parker, FIG. 2, FIG. 3, forces F1 and F2 are restoring and displacing forces relative to each other); a displacer assembly configured to apply to the pivoting anode assembly a periodic displacing force to displace the pivoting anode assembly from the quiescent position (id.); wherein the position of the anode assembly is configured to oscillate about the quiescent position in a motion transverse to the beam axis in response to the periodic displacing force and the restoring force thereby to oscillate the anode surface part transversely across the beam axis. (Parker, [0032], rotation of the tilted anode about the central axis results in oscillatory motion)
Regarding claim 2, Parker further discloses the pivoting anode assembly is configured to oscillate about the quiescent position such that a point of intersection of the electron beam axis upon the anode surface part scans a substantially linear path across the anode surface part. (This motion is enabled by the tilting discussed in Parker [0026]-[0027])
Regarding claim 3, Parker further discloses the pivot comprises a single pivot axis such that the pivoting anode assembly is configured to pivot about the single pivot axis. (Parker, FIG. 2, FIG. 3)
Regarding claim 4, Parker further discloses the spatial distribution of the mass of the pivoting anode assembly is asymmetrical with respect to the pivot axis. (Parker, FIG. 9)
Regarding claim 13, Parker further discloses the displacer assembly comprises a single actuator. (Parker, the embodiments shown in FIGs 7, 8, and 10 have a single actuator)
Regarding claim 15, Parker further discloses pivot comprises one or more flexure bearings configured to flex about a pivot axis of the pivoting anode assembly. (Parker, flexible coupling 4)
Regarding claim 16, Parker further discloses a transverse displacer configured to adjustably displace the pivoting anode assembly and the suspension assembly collectively in a direction transverse to a plane of oscillation of the anode surface part. (Parker, [0037])
Regarding claim 19, Parker further discloses the displacer assembly is configured to apply to the pivoting anode assembly the periodic displacing force to apply a torque to the pivoting anode assembly at a location thereon between the anode surface part and the pivot. (Parker, [0042])
Regarding claim 20, Parker the displacer assembly is configured to apply to the pivoting anode assembly the periodic displacing force to apply a torque to the pivoting anode assembly at a location thereon wherein the pivot is located between said location of the applied torque and the anode surface. (Parker, [0042])
Regarding claim 21, Parker further discloses an X-ray monochromator comprising the X-ray source according to claim 1. (No further structure is presented in the claim, and therefore this claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1 above.)
Regarding claims 22 and 23, the subject matter of claims 22 and 23 has been discussed above with respect to claim 1, and therefore claims 22 and 23 are rejected on the same grounds.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Venugpal et al. (2010/0027753)
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the features of claim 1, (see Venugpal [0037],[0038]) Venugpal discloses the pivoting anode assembly comprises a coolant channel configured for conducting coolant fluid in a direction away from the pivot to the anode surface part. (Venugpal, [0057])
Regarding claim 9, Venugpal further discloses the coolant channel is configured for conducting coolant fluid in a direction towards the pivot and away from the anode surface. (id.)
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Forthmann et al. (2009/0238328)
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the features of claim 1 (See Forthmann, [0052], [0053]) the displacer assembly is configured to apply to the pivoting anode assembly said periodic displacing force with a periodicity corresponding to a resonant frequency of oscillation of the pivoting anode assembly. (Forthmann, [0020], [0021])
Regarding claim 11, Forthmann further discloses the suspension assembly comprises one or more springs configured to apply the restoring force wherein the resonant frequency of oscillation is substantially proportional to the value of spring constant(s) of the one or more springs. (Forthmann, [0021], [0016], [0017])
Regarding claim 17, Forthmann further discloses a longitudinal displacer configured to adjustably displace the pivoting anode assembly in a direction substantially parallel to a plane of oscillation of the anode surface part to adjustably displace the anode surface part in a direction selectively longitudinal towards or longitudinal away from the electron beam generator. (Forthmann, oscillatory drive 241)
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) 5-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker.
Regarding claims 5-7, Parker lacks explicit teaching of the location of the center of mass of the anode relative to the other parts of the device, however these changes in proportion do not appreciably change the method of operation of the device and may reasonably be considered equivalents to each other.
Regarding claim 12, the term “anode” implies positive voltage, and selecting a particular threshold within known voltage ranges for x-ray anodes does not materially alter the patentability of the device.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forthmann.
Regarding claim 14, Forthmann lacks explicit teaching of the actuator comprises a piezo-electric actuator. However Forthmann does disclose oscillatory drive 241, without specifying a type of physical driver for the resonant spring system. Use of a known actuator (piezo-electrics are well-known and routine) for the purpose of creating motion from electrical signals is routine.
Regarding claim 18, Forthmann teaches a simultaneous rotation and longitudinal oscillation of the anode with the stated purpose and effect of carrying out a stepwise z-axis adjustment in the impact position of the electron beam without any stepwise motion of the anode. Accordingly, during periods between stepwise moves in the z-position of the impact point, the rotation and longitudinal oscillation of the anode are controlled to maintain a constant z-position of the impact point. This appears to satisfy the requirements of claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN C GUNBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-3107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-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.
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
