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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,272,514 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of the claims of the instant application are presented as limitations in the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,272,514 B2. However, in some instances these limitations are presented in a different order. This is to say, some of the limitations of the independent claims of the instant application are presented as limitations in the dependent claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,272,514 B2, and vice-versa. Also, some of the limitations are obvious variants. As such, an obvious type double patenting rejection is necessary.
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) 21-22, 24-35 and 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Allen et al. (US. Pub: 2016/0056007 A1~hereinafter “Allen”).
Regarding claim 21, Allen discloses (in at least figs. 1-14) an electron gun (300), comprising: a cathode (310) with an emitting surface configured to emit electrons, the cathode (310) including a through hole that goes through the cathode and is configured to allow back-streaming electrons of the emitted electrons to pass through (see at least fig. 3; abstract; [0045]-[0048]); an anode (210; [0046]) configured to attract the emitted electrons from the cathode to the anode and focus the emitted electrons into an electron beam; and a grid structure (320; [0047]) configured to facilitate the focusing of the emitted electrons, the grid structure being positioned within the through hole.
Regarding claim 22, Allen discloses (in at least figs. 1-14) a projection of at least a portion of the gird structure (320) along a common axis of the electron gun is within a cross-section of the through hole vertical to the common axis.
Regarding claim 24, Allen discloses (in at least figs. 1-14) the grid structure (320) includes a plurality of first meshes (best seen in at least figs. 4 and 5) , and the plurality of first meshes relate to a count of the back-streaming electrons passing through the grid structure and the focusing of the electrons emitted from the cathode (310).
Regarding claim 25, Allen discloses (in at least fig. 3) the grid structure (320) is in contact with the cathode (310).
Regarding claim 26, Allen discloses (in at least figs. 1-14) there is a gap (see fig. 4) between the grid structure (320) and the cathode (310).
Regarding claim 27, Allen discloses (in at least figs. 1-14) the grid structure (520) is supported by a grid supporter (540).
Regarding claim 28, Allen discloses (in at least figs. 1-14; [0032]; [0048]) the cathode includes a first material configured to facilitate the emission of the electrons from the cathode by lowering a work function of the cathode.
Regarding claim 29, Allen discloses (in at least figs. 1-14; [0035]) the grid structure includes a second material that is chemically reactive with the first material.
Regarding claim 30, Allen discloses (in at least figs. 1-14; [0032]) the first material includes barium (Ba), and the second material includes a transition metal including at least one of zirconium (Zr) or hafnium (Hf).
Regarding claim 31, Allen discloses (in at least figs. 1-14; [0035]-[0036]) the second material is configured to prevent emission of electrons from the grid structure caused by an impact of at least a portion of the back-streaming electrons on the grid structure.
Regarding claim 32, Allen discloses (in at least figs. 1-14) a grid electrode (320) configured to control flow of the electrons emitted from the cathode (310) to the anode (210), the grid electrode (320) being positioned between the cathode and the anode.
Regarding claim 33, Allen discloses (in at least figs. 1-14) the grid electrode includes a center mesh (see figs. 10-14) corresponding to the through hole (see figs. 10-14), the center mesh being configured to allow the back-streaming electrons of the emitted electrons to pass through and prevent the back-streaming electrons from impacting the grid electrode (see figs. 10-14), the center mesh being centered on the common axis (see figs. 10-14).
Regarding claim 34, Allen discloses (in at least figs. 1-14; [0035]) the grid electrode includes a third material that is chemically reactive with a first material of the cathode.
Regarding claim 35, Allen discloses (in at least figs. 1-14) the grid structure is positioned at a fixed location in the electron gun.
Regarding claim 37, Allen discloses (in at least figs. 1-14; [0036]; [0048]) the grid structure is thermally isolated from the cathode.
Regarding claim 38, Allen discloses (in at least figs. 1-14; [0006]; [0032]; [0035]) a work function of the grid structure is higher than the cathode.
Regarding claim 39, Allen discloses (in at least figs. 1-14) an electron gun, comprising: a cathode (310) with an emitting surface configured to emit electrons, the cathode (310; [0047]-[0049]; abstract) including a through hole that goes through the cathode and is configured to allow back-streaming electrons of the emitted electrons to pass through; an anode (210; [0046]) configured to attract the emitted electrons from the cathode to the anode and focus the emitted electrons into an electron beam; and a grid electrode (320; [0047]) including a plurality of first meshes configured to allow the electrons emitted from the cathode or the back-streaming electrons to pass through (see at least figs. 4-14), wherein the plurality of first meshes include a center mesh corresponding to the through hole (see at least figs. 4-14), the center mesh is configured to prevent the back-streaming electrons from impacting the grid electrode, and the center mesh is centered on a common axis of the electron gun (see at least figs. 10-14; [0083]-[0088]).
Regarding claim 40, Allen discloses (in at least figs. 1-14) a grid structure (525) configured to facilitate the focusing of the emitted electrons, the grid electrode (520) being positioned between the grid structure and the anode (210).
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.
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) 23 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US. Pub: 2016/0056007 A1~hereinafter “Allen”).
Regarding claim 23, Allen discloses all the claimed limitations except for the grid structure is provided with a same voltage as the cathode.
However, Allen discloses (in at least [0006]; [0032]) “the grid’s potential is close to the potential voltage of the cathode.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electron gun of Allen in order to inhibit electron emission to the through hole.
Regarding claim 36, Allen does not expressly disclose a position of the grid structure is adjustable along a common axis of the electron gun.
However, Allen discloses (in at least figs. 1-14) a position of the grid structure (320) is fixed along a common axis (105).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited adjustable position through design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that the recited adjustable position is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using the fixed position of Allen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
