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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is less than 50 words and fails to sufficiently describe the disclosure. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohmann (U.S. 6,453,011) in view of McDonald (U.S. 2007/0025517) and Lu (U.S. 5,920,605).
Regarding claim 1:
Lohmann discloses an X-ray tube comprising:
a structure (Fig. 1, 1);
a cathode body (Fig. 1, 3) hermetically sealed to a first end of the structure (Fig. 1, 3 is attached to one end of structure 1);
an anode body (Fig. 1, 2) hermetically sealed to a second end of the structure (Fig. 1, 2 is attached to one end of structure 1);
the anode body having a borehole (Fig. 1, tunnel 14) intersecting with a conical X-ray window (Fig. 1, conical window 13) extending radially from the borehole (Fig. 1, window 13 extends from 14), a target surface located within the borehole (Fig. 1, target 5 is located within 14) and adjacent to the conical X-ray window (Fig. 1, target 5 is next to window 13), the target surface formed to have an angle relative to an axis of the borehole that directs X-ray emission towards the conical X-ray window (Fig. 1, target 5 is angled relative to the bore axis shown by the dotted line), where a portion of borehole adjacent to the target surface extends through the anode body to form a tunnel such that the target surface is recessed within the tunnel (Fig. 1, portion of borehole 14 is recessed to accommodate target 5);
wherein an outer surface of the anode body comprises a first portion for coupling to an interior of the structure (Fig. 1, anode 2 connected to structure 1) and a second portion that is radially offset from the interior of the structure (Fig. 1, anode 2 is offset from structure 1); and
However, Lohmann fails to disclose a ceramic structure; the cathode body having a filament coupled within a central cup portion and configured to emit electrons in an electron beam towards the anode upon the application of a current to the filament.
McDonald teaches a ceramic structure ([0035], envelope made of ceramic).
Lu teaches the cathode body (Fig, 3, 90 cathode) having a filament (Fig. 3, 96 filament) coupled within a central cup portion (Fig. 3, 92 cup) and configured to emit electrons in an electron beam towards the anode upon the application of a current to the filament (Col. 1, lines 11-16, cathode is configured emit electrons).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the material of Lohmann with the ceramic taught by McDonald. One would have been motivated to make such substitution in order to reduce heat to prevent damage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute the material of Lohmann with the ceramic taught by McDonald to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the cathode of Lohmann with the cathode cup taught by Lu in order to reduce image resolution loss and image degradation (Lu; Col. 1, lines 52-58). Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute the cathode of Lohmann with the cathode cup taught by Lu to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Lohmann, McDonald, and Lu discloses the X-ray tube of claim 1, wherein the target surface is located at an end of a rod (Lohmann; Fig. 1, target surface 5 located at the end of 6), where the rod is inserted within the borehole opposite to the tunnel such that the target surface faces the cathode body (Lohmann; Fig. 1, rod 6 inside borehole 14).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Lohmann, McDonald, and Lu discloses the X-ray tube of claim 1, wherein the target surface comprises a flat surface (Lohmann; Fig. 1, surface of is flat).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Lohmann, McDonald, and Lu discloses the X-ray tube of claim 1, wherein the filament is located adjacent to a filament window within the cup structure (Lu; Fig. 3, opening 92 is next to filament) and where a surface of the filament window is configured shape a path of electrons in the electron beam (Lu; Col. 4, lines 19-33).
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Lohmann, McDonald, and Lu discloses the X-ray tube of claim 1, wherein the borehole extends through the anode body (Lohmann; Fig. 1, anode body 2 has a borehole 14).
Claims 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohmann (U.S. 6,453,011) in view of McDonald (U.S. 2007/0025517) and Lu (U.S. 5,920,605) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kostamo (U.S. 2021/0233752).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Lohmann, McDonald, and Lu discloses the X-ray tube of claim 1.
However, the combination of Lohmann, McDonald, and Lu fails to disclose a conducting member located adjacent to the conical X-ray window.
Kostamo teaches a conducting member located adjacent to the conical X-ray window ([0034], foil ).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the tube of Lohmann with the conducting member taught by Kostamo in order to reduce radiation absorption (Kostamo; [0034]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Lohmann, McDonald, Lu, and Kostamo discloses the X-ray tube of claim 6, where the conducting member comprises a thin foil material that is configured to function as a getter to absorb gas molecules inside the X-ray tube (Kostamo; [0034], foil provides gas tightness).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the tube of Lohmann with the conducting member taught by Kostamo in order to reduce radiation absorption (Kostamo; [0034]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohmann (U.S. 6,453,011) in view of McDonald (U.S. 2007/0025517) and Lu (U.S. 5,920,605) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Radcliffe (U.S. 2024/0062985).
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Lohmann, McDonald, and Lu discloses the X-ray tube of claim 1.
However, the combination of Lohmann, McDonald, and Lu fails to disclose a heat slug affixed to the anode body.
Radcliffe teaches a heat slug affixed to the anode body ([0085], heat spreader attached to anode).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the tube of Lohmann with the heat slug taught by Radcliffe in order to reduce intensity degradation by reducing heat (Radcliffe; [0014]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Lohmann, McDonald, Lu, and Radcliffe discloses the X-ray tube of claim 13, where anode body comprises a first material (Radcliffe; [0035], anode of Cu, Mo, Ag, Co, Cr, W, Rh, Ti, Fe, Al;) and the heat slug comprises a second material (Radcliffe; [0047], diamond heat spreader), where a thermal conductivity of the first material is different than a thermal conductivity of the second material (Radcliffe; [0035] and [0047], the target anode and the heat spreader are made of different material that have different thermal conductivity).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the tube of Lohmann with the heat slug taught by Radcliffe in order to reduce intensity degradation by reducing heat (Radcliffe; [0014]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, and 7-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior arts are Lohmann (U.S. 6,453,011) in view of McDonald (U.S. 2007/0025517), Lu (U.S. 5,920,605), and Kostamo (U.S. 2021/0233752).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Lohmann, McDonald, and Lu discloses the X-ray tube of claim 1.
However, the combination of Lohmann, McDonald, and Lu fails to disclose wherein the cathode body comprises a recess adjacent to the cup portion and having a stepped surface such that a first portion of the stepped surface is coupled to the interior of the ceramic structure and a second portion of the stepped surface is spaced from the interior of the ceramic structure.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Lohmann, McDonald, Lu, and Kostamo discloses the X-ray tube of claim 6.
However, the combination Lohmann, McDonald, Lu, and Kostamo fails to disclose wherein the conducting member comprises a thin foil material that covers an exterior opening of the conical X-ray window.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Lohmann, McDonald, Lu, and Kostamo discloses the X-ray tube of claim 6.
However, the combination of Lohmann, McDonald, Lu, and Kostamo fails to disclose wherein the conducting member is located within the conical X-ray window.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Lohmann, McDonald, Lu, and Kostamo discloses the X-ray tube of claim 6.
However, the combination Lohmann, McDonald, Lu, and Kostamo fails to disclose wherein the conducting member extends partially or fully around a circumference of the anode body.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Lohmann, McDonald, Lu, and Kostamo discloses the X-ray tube of claim 6.
However, the combination Lohmann, McDonald, Lu, and Kostamo fails to disclose wherein the conducting member is radially spaced from the interior of the ceramic structure.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights