DETAILED ACTION
In response to the office action mailed 01/16/2025, remarks were received on 06/16/2025:
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 9 and 10 have been canceled.
Claim 21 is new.
Claims 1-8 and 11-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gilevich (US 7046768 B1).
Regarding Claim 18: Gilevich discloses a computer-implemented method for controlling an X-ray product inspection apparatus (control system described in Col. 4, lines 1 – 19) comprising an X-ray generator (abstract) having an aperture (10C) for outputting an X-ray beam, the method comprising:
determining a presence or absence of a product to be inspected in the X-ray inspection apparatus (Col. 4, lines 4-9: “…automatic operation in response to signal from sensors arranged to detect the loading of a conveyor and to thus invoke the closed-shutter condition whenever a void, stoppage or other anomalous condition is detected in the product load that might otherwise result in increased x-ray radiation exposure.”); and
in dependence on the determination, controlling an actuator mechanism to move a shutter plate across the aperture between a closed position in which a barrier portion of the shutter plate is disposed across the aperture to substantially block the X-ray beam (Col. 2, line 60 – Col. 3, line 2: “Whenever an anomaly in the product loading on the conveyer creates a gap at the entry and exit openings in the shielded inspection enclosure that could otherwise cause an increase in environmental radiation levels, powering the actuator moves the shutter plate to an offset location that offsets the apertures to an effectively closed state to initiate a standby condition wherein x-ray radiation is substantially confined to the interior region of the collimator, without having to shut down the x-ray generator itself.”) and an open position in which the barrier portion is offset from the aperture to enable at least partial emission of the X-ray beam (Gilevich: Col. 2, lines 57 – 60: “…an aperture that, in the absence of power applied to the actuator, is made to align with a fixed aperture of the collimator so as to allow emission of the x-ray beam as required for normal inspection purposes.”).
Regarding Claim 19: Gilevich discloses the method of claim 18, comprising:
receiving a product signal from at least one sensor indicative of a detection of the product in the X-ray inspection apparatus; and
determining the presence or absence of the product in dependence on the product signal (Col. 4, lines 4 – 9: “automatic operation in response to signal from sensors arranged to detect the loading of a conveyor and thus invoke the closed-shutter condition whenever a void, stoppage or other anomalous condition is detected in the product load that might otherwise result in increased x-ray radiation exposure”).
Regarding Claim 21: Gilevich discloses an X-ray product inspection apparatus, comprising:
an X-ray generator comprising an aperture (10C) for outputting an X-ray beam;
a shutter apparatus (20) arranged across the aperture, the shutter apparatus comprising:
a moveable shutter plate (20) having a barrier portion of X-ray attenuating material (Col. 3, lines 32-35) configured to substantially block the X-ray beam; and
an actuator mechanism configured to move the shutter plate between a closed position in which the barrier portion is disposed across the aperture to substantially block the X-ray beam (Col. 2, line 64 – Col. 3, line 1: “…the actuator moves the shutter plate to an offset location that offsets the apertures to an effectively closed state to initiate a standby condition wherein x-ray radiation is substantially confined to the interior region of the collimator…”) and an open position in which the barrier portion is offset from the aperture to enable at least partial emission of the X-ray beam (Col. 2, lines 56-60: “…a shutter plate is made movable by an actuator and is configured with an aperture that… is made to align with a fixed aperture of the collimator so as to allow emission of the x-ray beam as required for normal inspection purposes”); and
a linear bearing, wherein the shutter plate comprises an arm portion arranged to move along the linear bearing between the open position and the closed position (Col. 3, lines 36-38: “Yoke plate 18 is captivated in a sliding manner to the collimator 10 by a pair of ball-bearing slide sets 22 and 22'' at the top and bottom respectively.”), wherein the arm portion extends in a same direction as a movement direction of the shutter plate along the linear bearing (Fig. 1 and 2, 21’ and 22’’).
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.
Claims 1-7, 11-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilevich in view of Schubert (US 11193898 B1).
Regarding Claim 1: Gilevich discloses an X-ray product inspection apparatus, comprising:
an X-ray generator comprising an aperture (10C) for outputting an X-ray beam;
a shutter apparatus (20) arranged across the aperture, the shutter apparatus comprising:
a moveable shutter plate (20) having:
a barrier portion of X-ray attenuating material configured to substantially block the X-ray beam (Col. 3, lines 31-34: “The front plate 10B, yoke plate 18 and shutter plate 20 are made from materials having lead content and thus high molecular weight for effective x-ray shielding…”); and
an aperture portion at least partially permeable to the X-ray beam (20A);
an actuator mechanism configured to move the shutter plate between a closed position in which the barrier portion is disposed across the aperture to substantially block the X-ray beam (Col. 2, line 64 – Col. 3, line 1: “…the actuator moves the shutter plate to an offset location that offsets the apertures to an effectively closed state to initiate a standby condition wherein x-ray radiation is substantially confined to the interior region of the collimator…”) and an open position in which the barrier portion is offset from the aperture to enable at least partial emission of the X-ray beam (Col. 2, lines 56-60: “…a shutter plate is made movable by an actuator and is configured with an aperture that… is made to align with a fixed aperture of the collimator so as to allow emission of the x-ray beam as required for normal inspection purposes”), wherein in the open position the aperture portion aligns with the aperture to enable at least partial emission of the X-ray beam through the aperture portion (Col. 3, lines 50-55: “A fixed aperture 10C similar in size and shape to the shutter aperture 20A is configured in front plate 10B and is located such that in this default state the two apertures are aligned to make this the open-shutter condition that allows the x-ray beam to exit and perform the desired inspection function.”).
Gilevich fails to teach a filter layer of material across the aperture portion configured to attenuate a portion of the X-ray beam below an energy threshold.
However, Schubert teaches an X-ray apparatus wherein a shutter (Fig. 1B, 162) is integrated with a filter layer (164, 166) of material across the aperture portion (161) configured to attenuate a portion of the X-ray beam below an energy threshold (Col. 11, lines 9-13: “Application of a beam filter reduces the low energy components enabling suppression of image data which only shows the exterior of the object being imaged and thereby enhancing a view of the interior of the object.”).
Gilevich and Schubert are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of X-ray inspection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gilevich to incorporate the teachings of Schubert and include a filter layer across the aperture portion to attenuate a portion of the X-ray beam below an energy threshold. Doing so would allow for the attenuation of soft X-rays, which are more susceptible to scattering widely.
Regarding Claim 2: Gilevich in view of Schubert discloses the X-ray product inspection apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a controller (Col. 4, lines 12-13: "control system") configured to:
determine a presence or absence of a product to be inspected in the X-ray inspection apparatus (Col. 4, lines 4-9: “…automatic operation in response to signal from sensors arranged to detect the loading of a conveyor and to thus invoke the closed-shutter condition whenever a void, stoppage or other anomalous condition is detected in the product load that might otherwise result in increased x-ray radiation exposure.”); and
output a control signal to the actuator mechanism to move the shutter plate between the closed position and the open position in dependence on the determination (Col. 4, lines 4-9: “…automatic operation in response to signal from sensors arranged to detect the loading of a conveyor and to thus invoke the closed-shutter condition whenever a void, stoppage or other anomalous condition is detected in the product load that might otherwise result in increased x-ray radiation exposure.”).
Regarding Claim 3: Gilevich in view of Schubert discloses the X-ray product inspection apparatus of claim 2, comprising at least one sensor configured to detect the product in the X-ray inspection apparatus and provide a product signal indicative of the detection (Col. 4, lines 4-9: “…automatic operation in response to signal from sensors arranged to detect the loading of a conveyor and to thus invoke the closed-shutter condition whenever a void, stoppage or other anomalous condition is detected in the product load that might otherwise result in increased x-ray radiation exposure.”) to the controller,
wherein the controller is configured to determine the presence or absence of the product in dependence on the product signal (Col. 4, lines 4-9).
Regarding Claim 4: Gilevich in view of Schubert discloses the X-ray product inspection apparatus of claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to:
determine the presence of a product in dependence on the detection of the product by the at least one sensor (Col. 4, lines 4-9); and
determine the absence of a product in dependence on a lack of detection of a product by the at least one sensor for at least a predetermined time (Col. 4, lines 4-9).
Regarding Claim 5: Gilevich in view of Schubert discloses the X-ray product inspection apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to output a control signal to the actuator mechanism to retain the shutter plate in the open position for a predetermined time window in dependence on the determination of the presence of a product (Col. 4, lines 4-9; Examiner interprets “void” to mean no product detected for a predetermined amount of time).
Regarding Claim 6: Gilevich discloses the X-ray product inspection apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to output a control signal to the actuator mechanism to move the shutter plate to the closed position in dependence on the determination of the absence of a product (Col. 4, lines 4-9).
Regarding Claim 7: Gilevich in view of Schubert discloses the X-ray product inspection apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to output a control signal to the X-ray generator to enter a low power state in response to the determination of the absence of a product (Col. 2, line 64 – Col. 3, line 2: “…the actuator moves the shutter plate to an offset location that offsets the apertures to an effectively closed state to initiate a standby condition wherein x-ray radiation is substantially confined to the interior region of the collimator, without having to shut down the x-ray generator itself”).
Regarding Claim 8: Gilevich in view of Schubert discloses the X-ray product inspection apparatus of claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to output a control signal to the X-ray generator to resume a full power state from the low power state in response to the determination of the presence of a product (Col. 1, lines 53 – 55: “…the two apertures are aligned to make this the open-shutter condition that allows the x-ray beam to exit and perform the desired inspection function.”).
Regarding Claim 11: Gilevich in view of Schubert discloses the X-ray product inspection apparatus of claim 1, wherein the barrier portion comprises a layer of brass (Col. 3, lines 31-35: “The front plate 10B, yoke plate 18 and shutter plate 20 are made from materials having lead content and thus high molecular weight for effective x-ray shielding, e.g. brass, moderately leaded steel and highly leaded steel, respectively.”).
Regarding Claim 12: Gilevich in view of Schubert discloses the X-ray product inspection apparatus of claim 1, wherein the shutter apparatus comprises a biasing mechanism (springs 24' and 24") configured to bias the shutter plate to the closed position (Col. 4, lines 20-23: “As an alternative to the above described embodiment wherein the default condition is made to be the open-shutter condition, the default condition could be made to be the closed-shutter condition…”; Claim 1, Col. 5, line 22 - Col. 6, line 2: “…spring biasing means, operationally connected to said shutter-shield plate, made and arranged to urge said shutter-shield plate to move to a first end of the travel range whenever said electrical solenoid is not powered, said electrical solenoid being made and arranged to urge said shutter-shield plate to move to a second end of the travel range, opposite the first end, whenever said electrical solenoid is powered.”).
Regarding Claim 13: Gilevich in view of Schubert discloses the X-ray product inspection apparatus of claim 12, wherein the biasing mechanism comprises a spring connected to the shutter plate (24' and 24"; Col. 3, lines 39-41: “A pair of coil springs 24' and 24'' are attached at their left hand ends to yoke plate 18 and at their right hand ends to the collimator 10…”).
Regarding Claim 14: Gilevich in view of Schubert discloses the X-ray product inspection apparatus of claim 1, wherein the actuator mechanism comprises one or more solenoids (16) which are arranged to move the shutter plate from the closed position to the open position when energized (Col. 4, lines 20-23: “As an alternative to the above described embodiment wherein the default condition is made to be the open-shutter condition, the default condition could be made to be the closed-shutter condition…”).
Regarding Claim 15: Gilevich in view of Schubert discloses the X-ray product inspection apparatus of claim 1, wherein the shutter apparatus comprises a linear bearing, and wherein the shutter plate comprises an arm portion arranged to move along the linear bearing between the open position and the closed position (Col. 3, lines 61-63: “The movement to the left is in a horizontal direction constrained to a linear path by the ball bearing slide assemblies 22' and 22''”).
Regarding Claim 17: Gilevich in view of Schubert discloses the X-ray product inspection apparatus of claim 1, wherein the X-ray generator comprises a collimator (Fig. 1, 10) for collimating the X-ray beam.
Regarding Claim 20: Gilevich discloses a method for controlling an X-ray product inspection apparatus comprising an X-ray generator (abstract) having an aperture (10C) for outputting an X-ray beam, the method comprising steps of:
determining a presence or absence of a product to be inspected in the X-ray inspection apparatus (Col. 4, lines 4 – 9: “automatic operation in response to signal from sensors arranged to detect the loading of a conveyor and thus invoke the closed-shutter condition whenever a void, stoppage or other anomalous condition is detected in the product load that might otherwise result in increased x-ray radiation exposure”); and
in dependence on the determination, controlling an actuator mechanism to move a shutter plate across the aperture between a closed position in which a barrier portion of the shutter plate is disposed across the aperture to substantially block the X-ray beam (Col. 2, line 60 – Col. 3, line 2: “Whenever an anomaly in the product loading on the conveyer creates a gap at the entry and exit openings in the shielded inspection enclosure that could otherwise cause an increase in environmental radiation levels, powering the actuator moves the shutter plate to an offset location that offsets the apertures to an effectively closed state to initiate a standby condition wherein x-ray radiation is substantially confined to the interior region of the collimator, without having to shut down the x-ray generator itself.”) and an open position in which the barrier portion is offset from the aperture to enable at least partial emission of the X-ray beam (Gilevich: Col. 2, lines 57 – 60: “…an aperture that, in the absence of power applied to the actuator, is made to align with a fixed aperture of the collimator so as to allow emission of the x-ray beam as required for normal inspection purposes.”).
Gilevich fails to teach a non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium storing computer-readable instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, performs the method described above.
However, Schubert teaches a non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium storing computer-readable instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, performs a method for controlling an X-ray product inspection apparatus comprising an X-ray generator having an aperture for outputting an X-ray beam (Abstract; Col. 8, line 38 – Col. 9, line 24).
Gilevich and Schubert are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of X-ray inspection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gilevich to incorporate the teachings of Schubert to implement the method of Gilevich using the computer readable medium taught by Schubert. Doing so would have merely involved the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, specifically using computer implementation to automate or improve the method.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilevich in view of Schubert, in further view of Minnigh (US 8351568 B2).
Regarding Claim 16: Gilevich in view of Schubert discloses the X-ray product inspection apparatus of claim 1, but both Gilevich and Schubert fail to teach wherein the shutter apparatus comprises a proximity sensor arranged to detect whether the shutter plate is in the open position or the closed position.
However, Minnigh teaches an X-ray apparatus wherein the shutter apparatus comprises a proximity sensor arranged to detect whether the shutter plate is in the open position or the closed position (Col. 8, lines 8-14).
Gilevich, Schubert, and Minnigh are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of X-ray inspection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gilevich in view of Schubert to incorporate the teachings of Minnigh and include a proximity sensor to detect whether the shutter plate is in the open position or the closed position. Doing so would enable precise control and timing to ensure accurate exposure. Further, a position sensor can detect if the shutter fails to fully open or close and ensure operational safety and reliability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA DOWNING whose telephone number is (703)756-1840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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.
/MIYA DOWNING/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights