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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 6483719 B1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (US 20170119324 A1) in view of Belson (US 20090232282 A1) and Bachman (US 6483719 B1)
With regards to claims 1 and 9, Wilson discloses a shield 102 for reducing radiation leakage through an x-ray tube (Abstract) comprising a plurality of radiation-absorbent material layers (flexible radioabsorbent material such as vinyl fabric and radiation blocking material sandwiched within the vinyl material ) [0018] and at least one protective material layer (vinyl fabric on both sides of the radioabsorbent material) [0018], wherein the shield is shaped to enshroud an x-ray tube housing without obstructing an aperture thereof (Fig. 5A), wherein covering surfaces of the x-ray tube housing with the shield comprises forming the plurality of radiation-absorbent material layers and the at least one protective material layer into a shape that is configured to enshroud the x-ray tube housing while not obstructing an x-ray aperture thereof and fastening the shield to the x-ray tube housing (Fig. 5A) [0088]. Wilson does not explicitly teach wherein the shield is shaped to be secured against the tube housing so as to substantially cover all exposed surfaces of the X-ray tube. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Belson teaches it was known to attach a shield to the x-ray source [0083] and further wherein a shield 112 may be configured to substantially cover all exposed surfaces of the X-ray tube without obstructing an aperture 120 thereof (Fig. 2). Therefore, in view of preventing x-rays from escaping through gaps between the shield and the moving x-ray source, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wilson with the claimed configuration. The combination of Wilson and Belson does not teach wherein the shield is shaped by thermoforming as claimed. Bachman teaches thermoforming of a sheet of thermoformable polymer into a confirming shield enclosure whose dimensions match an electronic device housing (column 16, line 64-column 19, line 67; Claim 1; wherein conforming such that the dimensions match the housing teaches the newly added limitations to claim 9). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Wilson and Benson with the claimed thermoformed shield, as taught by Bachman, in order to form a tightly confirming shield geometry thereby improving the surface coverage.
With regards to claim 13, Wilson discloses various fasteners for attaching a shield to an x-ray tube housing [0088].
With regards to claims 6 and 16, Wilson discloses wherein said shield further includes an adhesive for adhering the shield to an x-ray tube housing (bonding agent) [0088].
With regards to claim 7, Belson discloses wherein said fastener comprises a flexible material adapted to be wrapped around the x-ray housing and fastened to the shield [0040].
With regards to claim 8, Wilson discloses wherein said fastener comprises a hook and loop fastener [0088].
With regards to claim 14, Wilson discloses wherein said shield comprises a flexible material adapted to be wrapped around an x-ray housing and fastened to itself via a fastener [0018, 0088].
With regards to claim 17, Wilson discloses a device for protecting personnel in a vicinity of an operating x-ray machine having an x-ray tube X housing comprising: a plurality of radiation-absorbent material layers [0018] configured to cover one or more surfaces of the x-ray tube housing (Fig. 5A, wherein the table T is part of the housing), thereby preventing radiation leaking through the x-ray tube housing from reaching the personnel; and a fastener for attaching the plurality of radiation-absorbent material layers to the surfaces such that the plurality of radiation-absorbent material layers moves with the x-ray tube housing (Fig. 5B). Wilson does not explicitly teach wherein the shield is shaped to be secured against the tube housing so as to substantially cover all exposed surfaces of the X-ray tube. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Belson teaches it was known to attach a shield to the x-ray source [0083] and further wherein a shield 112 may be configured to substantially cover all exposed surfaces of the X-ray tube without obstructing an aperture 120 thereof (Fig. 2). Therefore, in view of preventing x-rays from escaping through gaps between the shield and the moving x-ray source, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wilson with the claimed configuration. The combination of Wilson and Belson does not teach wherein the shield is shaped by thermoforming as claimed. Bachman teaches thermoforming of a sheet of thermoformable polymer into a confirming shield enclosure whose dimensions match an electronic device housing (column 16, line 64-column 19, line 67; Claim 1; wherein conforming such that the dimensions match the housing teaches the newly added limitations to claim 17). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Wilson and Benson with the claimed thermoformed shield, as taught by Bachman, in order to form a tightly confirming shield geometry thereby improving the surface coverage.
With regards to claim 21, Wilson teaches a multilayer shield [0018]. Bachman teaches heating thermoformable polymer sheets to soften and shape the sheet into a conformable enclosure (column 16, line 64-column 19, line 67; Claim 1). However, neither Wilson nor Bachman explicitly teach heating the multilayer material such that the layers fuse together. Nevertheless, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to heat, the multilayer material such that the layers fuse together, since such a technique was already known to improve structural integrity, prevent shifting of layers during forming, and improve durability.
Claims 2-4 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of Belson, Bachman, and Widlicka (US 5604784 A).
With regards to claims 2-4 and 18-20, Wilson does not explicitly teach the claimed shield. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Widlicka teaches a shield wherein the shield is constructed to have varying x-ray absorption capabilities that vary in accordance with a varying photon emission rate of the x-ray tube housing such that shield thickness may be varied on a particular surface or on combinations of surfaces and wherein the varying x-ray absorption capabilities result from varying thicknesses of the plurality of radiation-absorbent material layers such that the plurality of radiation-absorbent material layers is thicker in areas on the x-ray tube housing having higher photon emission and further wherein the varying x-ray absorption capabilities result from varying concentrations of radiation-absorbent elements used in making the plurality of radiation-absorbent material layers such that the plurality of radiation-absorbent material layers is non-homogenous, having different elements that correspond to the varying photon emission rate of the x-ray tube housing. Specifically, the shield thickness is made thicker where more radiation shielding is needed and thinner where less radiation shielding is needed (Fig. 2; column 4, lines 51-56). In this manner the coating thickness can be varied as required by the need to provide radiation shielding. In view of the recited benefit, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the plurality of radiation-absorbent material layers of Wilson with the claimed shield.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of Belson, Frisco, and Ham (KR 1783937 B1).
With regards to claim 15, Wilson does not teach wrapping a belt around a surface of the tube housing opposite the aperture. Ham teaches a radiation shielding device (Abstract) comprising a flexible sheet of material adapted to be wrapped around an x-ray housing and fastened to itself via a fastener (The radiation shielding film 20 of the present invention is for embedding a tube 11 which is an x-ray generating part of an X-ray imaging apparatus in a bag, and has a bag-shaped main body 21, The fastening member 23 is provided...The fastening member 23 is for fastening the opening 22 of the closed bag to the frame 12 of the X-ray imaging apparatus so as to insert the main body 21 into the bag shape and fasten the covering bag 20, It is preferable to use any one of a string 23a, a Velcro 23b, an elastic band 23c [methods of fastening to itself]...(see Fig. 2); Fig. 1; Pg. 3, Para. 4; see also Fig. 2; Pg. 3, Para. 7). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wilson with the teaching of Ham for the purpose of providing ease of assembly and disassembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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 on 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884