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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, at least one adjustment mechanism claimed in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, additional pinhole apertures claimed in claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a capillary lens or a reflection optical assembly claimed in claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a fixture assembly claimed in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) An alignment apparatus for an X-ray source comprising:
an X-ray tube configured to emit X-rays; and
an optical alignment assembly situated between the X-ray tube and a sample, the optical alignment assembly comprising:
a flight tube; and
at least one adjustment mechanism,
wherein the optical alignment assembly is adjustable to ensure the emitted X-rays produce an illumination on the sample [[with]] with a maximized X-ray intensity [[and]] and a desired spot shape.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The alignment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the X-ray tube comprises:
an envelope configured to provide a sub-atmospheric environment;
a cathode disposed within the envelope, the cathode including a filament configured to be a source for electrons to be emitted by the cathode; and
an anode disposed within the envelope and including an emission [[spot]] spot, where the electrons emitted by the cathode impact, decelerate, and result in [[the]] an emission (a lack of an antecedent basis) of X-rays; and
wherein the envelope defines an exit window situated to allow the emitted X-rays to exit the X-ray tube while maintaining the sub-atmospheric environment within the envelope.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The alignment apparatus of claim 2, wherein the flight tube is configured to carry and center at least one of a plurality of pinhole apertures while allowing for a translation of the flight tube, the flight tube further comprising:
at least one entry pinhole aperture providing an initial collimation of divergent X-rays emitted by the emission spot; and
at least one exit pinhole aperture providing a final collimation of the divergent X-rays transmitted through the at least one entry pinhole aperture.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
5. (Proposed Amendments) The alignment apparatus of claim 3, wherein the optical alignment assembly further comprises additional pinhole apertures positioned between the at least one entry pinhole aperture and the at least one exit pinhole aperture to modify a focal spot size, [[shape]] a shape, and a fluence.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
7. (Proposed Amendments) The alignment apparatus of claim [[6]] 6, wherein the at least one adjustment mechanism further includes at least one [[of an]] adjustment screw (claim 8) or at least one micrometer in tension against the at least one retainer device.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
8. (Proposed Amendments) The alignment apparatus of claim 7, wherein the at least one adjustment screw or the at least one micrometer allows [[for]] for an off-axis correction of the optical alignment assembly to compensate for dimensional errors associated with a fixturing assembly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
9. (Proposed Amendments) The alignment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the optical alignment assembly further comprises a slotted hole running a length of the optical alignment assembly to allow [[for]] for a translation of the flight tube.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
11. (Proposed Amendments) The alignment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the optical alignment assembly is configured to project a focal spot on a surface of the sample [[for]] for an analysis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
12. (Proposed Amendments) The alignment apparatus of claim 11, wherein the sample is an imaging X-ray sensor or an X-ray count rate sensor used [[for]] for an r-theta alignment of the optical alignment assembly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
13. (Proposed Amendments) The alignment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the optical alignment assembly comprises a solid cylinder with a machined slot allowing [[for]] for a maximum travel of a collimator train or a capillary lens assembly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
14. (Proposed Amendments) The alignment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the optical alignment assembly is configured [[for]] for a polar coordinate and translational alignment.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
17.(Proposed Amendments) A method comprising:
emitting X-rays from an X-ray tube along a central axis;
adjusting an optical alignment assembly in a first linear direction perpendicular to the central axis and a first rotational direction around the central axis to align the optical alignment assembly with the X-ray tube; and
illuminating a sample [[with]] with a maximized X-ray intensity [[and]] and a desired spot shape.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
19.(Proposed Amendments) The method of claim 17, further comprising:
observing the sample during the adjusting step to ensure a desired focal size, [[shape]] a shape, [[and]] and a maximum X-ray flux or fluence is achieved during an alignment.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 20-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
20. (Proposed Amendments) A method comprising:
providing a reference device [[for]] for an analysis;
adjusting a radial distance of an optical train;
energizing an X-ray tube to a predetermined voltage [[and]] and an emission current;
recording an X-ray count;
moving an optical alignment assembly to a first radius value perpendicular to a central axis;
adjusting an angle (Q) of the optical alignment assembly through a full 360-degree rotation while [[the]] an X-ray count rate (a lack of an antecedent basis) is monitored to identify the angle (Q) at which the X-ray count rate is maximized; and
recalibrating the optical train based on [[the]] a previously observed maximum flux (a lack of an antecedent basis).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
21. (Proposed Amendments) The method of claim 20, wherein adjusting the angle (Q) of the optical alignment assembly is performed incrementally or continuously.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 22 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
22.(Proposed Amendments) The method of claim 20, further comprising:
moving the optical alignment assembly to at least a second radius value.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
23.(Proposed Amendments) The method of claim 22, further comprising:
observing the reference device during the angle adjustment and movement to at least one of the radius values to ensure a desired spot size, [[spot]] a spot shape, [[and]] and a maximum X-ray flux or fluence is achieved.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 recites a limitation “the X-ray tube or the optical alignment assembly are configured to move relative to the sample” in lines 1-2. However, the X-ray tube and the optical alignment assembly are simply structural elements, and the specification does not describe any moving mechanism. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites a limitation “the sample is configured to move relative to the optical alignment assembly” in lines 1-2. However, the sample is simply a structural element, and the specification does not describe any moving mechanism. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 4, 6-8, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 4 recites passive limitations “a capillary lens or a reflection optical assembly” in line 2, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the flight tube actually includes a capillary lens or a reflection optical assembly. See claim 3. See transitional phrases in MPEP § 2111.03.
Claim 6 recites a passive limitation “at least one retainer device” in line 2, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the at least one adjustment mechanism actually includes at least one retainer device. See claim 3. See transitional phrases in MPEP § 2111.03.
Claim 23 recites a limitation “the angle adjustment and movement” in lines 1-2, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites a limitation “the radius values” in line 2, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites a limitation “the angle adjustment and movement” in line 1, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 fails to set forth an additional structural limitation. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waldschläger et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,908,103 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Waldschläger et al. disclosed an alignment apparatus for an X-ray source comprising:
an X-ray tube (1) configured to emit X-rays; and
an optical alignment assembly situated between the X-ray tube and a sample, the optical alignment assembly comprising:
a flight tube (6); and
at least one adjustment mechanism (4),
wherein the optical alignment assembly is adjustable to ensure the emitted X-rays produce an illumination on the sample with a maximized X-ray intensity and a desired spot shape (column 11, lines 37-48).
With respect to claim 11, Waldschläger et al. disclosed the alignment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the optical alignment assembly is configured to project a focal spot on a surface of the sample for an analysis (column 12, lines 22-33).
With respect to claim 14, Waldschläger et al. disclosed the alignment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the optical alignment assembly is configured for a polar coordinate and translational alignment (being capable of a polar coordinate and translational alignment).
With respect to claim 15, Waldschläger et al. disclosed the alignment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the X-ray tube or the optical alignment assembly are configured to move relative to the sample (the sample can be positioned relative to the X-ray tube or the optical alignment assembly).
With respect to claim 16, Waldschläger et al. disclosed the alignment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sample is configured to move relative to the optical alignment assembly. (the sample can be positioned relative to the X-ray tube or the optical alignment assembly).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldschläger et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,908,103 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matoba et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,529,337 B2).
With respect to claim 2, Waldschläger et al. disclosed the alignment apparatus of claim 1. However, Waldschläger et al. did not disclose that the X-ray tube further comprises:
an envelope configured to provide a sub-atmospheric environment;
a cathode disposed within the envelope, the cathode including a filament configured to be a source for electrons to be emitted by the cathode; and
an anode disposed within the envelope and including an emission spot, where the electrons emitted by the cathode impact, decelerate, and result in an emission of X-rays; and
wherein the envelope defines an exit window situated to allow the emitted X-rays to exit the X-ray tube while maintaining the sub-atmospheric environment within the envelope.
Matoba et al. disclosed an X-ray tube comprising:
an envelope (4) configured to provide a sub-atmospheric environment;
a cathode disposed within the envelope, the cathode including a filament (5) configured to be a source for electrons to be emitted by the cathode; and
an anode (6) disposed within the envelope and including an emission spot, where the electrons emitted by the cathode impact, decelerate, and result in an emission of X-rays; and
wherein the envelope defines an exit window situated to allow the emitted X-rays to exit the X-ray tube while maintaining the sub-atmospheric environment within the envelope (column 6, lines 34-49).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an X-ray tube as claimed, since an X-ray tube would require an envelope, a cathode, a anode, and an exit window to generate X-rays.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, and 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 17-19, the prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggested a method as claimed.
With respect to claims 20-22, the prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggested a method as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Waldschläger et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,908,103 B2) disclosed an X-ray fluorescence spectrometer.
Mazor et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,653,174 B2) disclosed an inspection of small features with X-ray fluorescence.
Matoba et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,529,337 B2) disclosed an energy-dispersive radiation detecting system and a method of measuring a content of object elements.
Radley et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,209,545 B2) disclosed an X-ray source assembly having an enhanced stability, and fluid stream analysis applications thereof.
Radley et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,072,439 B2) disclosed an apparatus comprising an X-ray tube and a method for analyzing fluid streams.
Rafaeli et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,023,954 B2) disclosed an optical alignment of X-ray microanalyzers.
Chen et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,934,359 B2) disclosed an XRF wave-dispersive system comprising a focus optic for an excitation and a focusing monochromator for a collection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allen C. Ho, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, David J. 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.
Allen C. Ho, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Allen C. Ho/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Allen.Ho@uspto.gov
