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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 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.
Claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aoyama (US 2021/0389262 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Aoyama discloses a system for x-ray analysis (Fig.1), including:
a) an x-ray analysis assembly disposed in an x-ray enclosure 14 configured to maintain a controlled first pressure, the x-ray analysis assembly further configured to direct a first x-ray beam toward a sample S positioned out of the x-ray enclosure 14 at a second pressure different from the first pressure (par.0024), and the x-ray analysis assembly further configured to produce a signal indicative of a second x-ray beam emitted from the sample S in response to the first x-ray beam impinging on the sample S (via detector 20); and
b) a window assembly 16 disposed between the x-ray analysis assembly and the sample S, the window assembly 16 configured to seal the x-ray enclosure 14 to maintain a pressure difference between the first and second pressures (par.0024), and the window assembly 16 is further configured to pass the first and second x-ray beams (Fig.1), where the window assembly 16 includes a window layer 16 made from a material transparent to the first and second x-ray beams (Fig.1).
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Aoyama further discloses that the sample S is disposed on a stage 17 configured to move the sample along at least an axis (at least vertical, pars.0043, 0048 and 0050), and comprising a processor 41 configured to control the stage 17 to move the sample S along the axis relative to the x-ray enclosure 14 and to position a first surface of the sample S at a distance less than 0.5 mm from a surface of the window layer 16 facing the first surface (Fig.1; as broadly as claimed, Aoyama is capable of positioning the surface of the sample at any desired distance from the window suitable for the desired analysis).
With respect to claims 10 and 20, Aoyama further discloses that the x-ray analysis assembly has:
c) an x-ray source having an anode having an anode metal film 51 configured to emit the first x-ray beam having a given energy, the anode metal film has an electrical conductivity greater than 8.3 x 104 S/m (rhodium, par.0030), and is formed over a base layer 52 having a thermal conductivity greater than 300 W/(m-K) at 600 Centigrade (diamond, par.0031), and one or more cathode emitters 10 configured to produce an electron beam directed to the anode 51 to produce the first x-ray beam; where
d) the second pressure includes atmospheric pressure (par.0024); and
e) the second x-ray beam includes x-ray fluorescence emitted from the sample S at a depth less than 1000 nm (focal spot of the x-ray beam is at the surface of the sample, par.0050).
Examiner’s Note: given that all of the structural limitations of the claim have been met, then the apparatus of Aoyama is equally capable of achieving the desired result of generating x-ray fluorescence within the top 1 micron of the sample. Therefore, Aoyama anticipates.
Additionally, it is strange to have the claimed combination of limitations in one claim. The electrical and thermal conductivity of the anode have absolutely nothing to do with the penetration depth of the x-rays in the sample. The penetration depth is a function of the incident x-ray energies and the sample composition, where the incident x-ray energies are a function of the acceleration voltage and the chemical elements that form the anode.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Puusaari (US 2007/0269003 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Puusaari discloses a system for x-ray analysis (Fig.1), including:
a) an x-ray analysis assembly disposed in an x-ray enclosure 102 configured to maintain a controlled first pressure, the x-ray analysis assembly further configured to direct a first x-ray beam toward a sample 101 positioned out of the x-ray enclosure 102 at a second pressure different from the first pressure (par.0008), and the x-ray analysis assembly further configured to produce a signal indicative of a second x-ray beam emitted from the sample 101 in response to the first x-ray beam impinging on the sample 101 (via detector 105); and
b) a window assembly 103 disposed between the x-ray analysis assembly and the sample 101, the window assembly 103 configured to seal the x-ray enclosure 102 to maintain a pressure difference between the first and second pressures (pars.0008 and 0033), and the window assembly 103 is further configured to pass the first and second x-ray beams (Fig.1), where the window assembly 103 includes a window layer 103 made from a material transparent to the first and second x-ray beams (Fig.1; par.0033).
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 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 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyama, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively, in view of Fragala (US 2022/0068635 A1).
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Aoyama further discloses that the x-ray analysis assembly has one or more detectors 20 configured to produce the signal in response to detecting the second x-ray beam.
Aoyama does not specifically disclose a charge trap.
Fragala teaches the practice of providing a charge trap integrated within the x-ray enclosure and configured to prevent electrons and charged particles from entering the one or more detectors 150 (par.0030). In this manner, background artifacts are reduced by preventing electrons from passing through the detector window 160 (par.0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Aoyama to include a charge trap within the x-ray enclosure in order to prevent electrons and charged particles from entering the detector in order to reduce background noise, as taught by Fragala.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyama, as applied to claims 6 and 16 above, respectively, in view of Wakisaka (US 2021/0262951 A1).
With respect to claims 7 and 17, Aoyama further discloses that the second pressure is atmospheric pressure (par.0024). Aoyama does not specifically disclose a gas purge.
However, inert gas purges are routine in the art of x-ray analyses, including argon, nitrogen and helium. The skilled artisan recognizes that nitrogen and helium are most suitable for low-energy x-ray fluorescence due to their extremely low-energy characteristic x-rays.
Wakisaka teaches the practice of providing separate chambers 3 and 4 of an x-ray analysis system, each being capable of having different vacuum or purge gas environments as desired for a given analysis configuration, where the gases include nitrogen (par.0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Aoyama to control a flow of a nitrogen gas between the first and second surfaces in order to minimize noise in the x-ray fluorescence analysis, as suggested by Wakisaka and as is known in the art.
Claims 2-4, 8, 9, 12-14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puusaari, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, respectively, in view of Edler (US 2025/0201507 A1).
With respect to claims 2, 3, 12 and 13, Puusaari teaches thin polymer-based windows for detecting light elements (low-Z) having low-energy characteristic x-rays (par.0033).
Edler teaches the practice of providing a robust x-ray window suitable for a range of applications and a variety of x-ray analyses (pars.0016-0017 and 0026). Edler particularly teaches that the window be made of graphene, SiN or SiC (pars.0021-0023 and 0064-0067) in order to provide a viable x-ray window to pass low-energy x-rays, dissipate electrical charges (carbon-based), and maintain desired pressure differences.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Puusaari to have a window made of graphene, SiN or SiC, in order to provide low attenuation of low-energy x-rays for fluorescence analysis while maintaining suitable charge dissipation and atmospheric pressure differentials, as taught by Edler.
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Puusaari further discloses that the x-ray analysis assembly has one or more detectors 104 configured to produce the signal in response to detecting the second x-ray beam.
Puusaari does not specifically disclose the electrical properties of the window layer 103; however, the materials disclosed are typically not electrically conductive sufficient to perform the claimed functions (par.0033).
Edler teaches the practice of providing a robust x-ray window suitable for a range of applications and a variety of x-ray analyses (pars.0016-0017 and 0026). Edler particularly teaches that the window be made of graphene (pars.0021-0023, 0064-0065 and 0067) in order to provide a viable x-ray window to pass low-energy x-rays and capable of preventing electrons and charged particles from either adhering to a window surface of the window layer facing the sample and/or entering the one or more detectors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Puusaari to have an electrically conductive window layer such that electrons and charged particles are prevented from either adhering to a window surface of the window layer facing the sample, and/or entering the one or more detectors, in order to reduce background artifacts, as taught by Edler.
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Puusaari does not specifically disclose the details of the window construction.
Edler teaches the practice of constructing a window (such as Fig.1) having a window layer 2 made from the material which is formed over an additional layer 5, where the additional layer is less transparent to the first and second x-ray beams (thicker silicon, for support: par.0111), and has an opening for passing the first and second x-ray beams (Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Puusaari to have the window layer formed over the additional layer being less transparent to the first and second x-ray beams and having an opening for passing the first and second x-ray beams in order to provide sufficient structural support for the window layer, as taught by Edler.
With respect to claims 9 and 19, Puusaari does not specifically disclose the dimensions of the window.
Edler teaches that such windows may have openings smaller than 5mm (“a diameter… is, for example, at least 100 microns or at least 1 mm and at most 10 cm: par.0025) and a thickness less than 0.5 microns (anywhere from 1 monolayer to 2 mm: par.0022) in order to have as minimal an effect on the x-ray beams as possible at low energies (pars.0064 and 0067) for minimizing background artifacts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Puusaari to have an opening smaller than 5 mm as desired for the application, and a thickness less than 0.5 microns in order to minimize background artifacts caused by interactions with the window material, all as taught by Edler.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US patent to Ohno teaches the practice of using helium and nitrogen as purge gases in x-ray analyses; and the additional US patent documents to Aoyama teach stage-based motion for 3D fluorescence mapping of the surface of the sample.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R ARTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2485. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6:30pm.
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 on 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.
THOMAS R. ARTMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/THOMAS R ARTMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
