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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 15 January 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”. Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… projector body 210 …” in paragraph 18) serves as a glossary (MPEP § 2111.01) for the claim term “projector”.
The specification (e.g., see “… shutter 220 may be a small plate that rotates in, or slides in, to block aperture insert 310. For illustrative purposes, shutter (consisting of a dense metal) 220 essentially blocks a small hole from where the arrows are coming out of in FIG. 3. This shutter 220 could be 3 or more half value layers thick to stop radiation …” in paragraph 23) serves as a glossary for the newly added claim term “a dense metal”.
The specification (e.g., see “… capture multiple shots on order of hundreds of shots to create a 3D reconstruction from infield gamma ray images …” in paragraph 12) serves as a glossary for the claim term “infield gamma ray images”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
While the specification discloses a remotely operated apparatus (e.g., see “… collimator 215 is equipped with an electronically (or remote) controlled shutter 220 operated remotely. By using electronically controlled shutter 220, successive exposures are enabled without the need to retract isotope 250 back into projector body 210 after each exposure. This allows for the operator to approach the inspection area without retracting isotope 250 into the center of the projector shielded with depleted Uranium 230, thus preventing wear and tear on isotope 250 …” in paragraph 23), there does not appear to be any disclosure of a handheld apparatus. Therefore, there does not appear to be a written description of the newly added claim limitation “handheld” in the application as filed.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above also fail(s) to comply with the written description requirement for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “an aperture insert” in the last line. The claim fails to particularly point out whether claim 10’s “an aperture insert” is the same or a different from amended independent claim 9’s “an aperture insert”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “an aperture insert” in the two lines. The claim fails to particularly point out whether claim 11’s “an aperture insert” is the same or a different from amended independent claim 9’s “an aperture insert”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “an aperture insert” in the last line. The claim fails to particularly point out whether claim 14’s “an aperture insert” is the same or a different from amended independent claim 9’s “an aperture insert”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “an aperture insert” in the two lines. The claim fails to particularly point out whether claim 17’s “an aperture insert” is the same or a different from amended independent claim 16’s “an aperture insert”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “an aperture insert” in the last line. The claim fails to particularly point out whether claim 20’s “an aperture insert” is the same or a different from amended independent claim 16’s “an aperture insert”.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also indefinite for the same reasons.
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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
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.
Claim(s) 9-11, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Featonby al. (US 2018/0100816) in view of Hall et al. (US 3,832,564), Nishikawa (US 2010/0224800), and Arsenault et al. (US 2015/0377804).
In regard to claim 9, Featonby et al. disclose an apparatus configured to capture images, comprising:
(a) a projector comprising an isotope encapsulated within a depleted uranium (e.g., “… For large sources, such as 20 to 300 Ci 192Ir sources, Type B certified source containers (Type B(U) or Type B(M) as defined in The IAEA Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material 2012 Edition Specific Safety Requirements No. SSR-6) may be required. The skilled person will be familiar with the certification of source containers and will appreciate the requirements for Type B certified containers … shielding may be lead, tungsten or depleted uranium shielding …” in paragraph 50);
(b) a collimator affixed to the projector eliminating use of a guide tube, wherein the collimator comprises a projector port affixed to the projector, facilitating insertion of the isotope into, and retraction of the isotope out of, the collimator (e.g., “… extension channel comprises shielding such that, when the source is in the operation position, radiation from the source is emitted in a pattern determined by the shielding … shielding may be configured to produce a linear ray of radiation. The shielding may be configured to produce a fan of radiation. The shielding may be configured to produce a sector, preferably a cylindrical sector, of radiation. Because the shielding is associated with the extension channel, rather than the Type B certified container, the shielding may be altered or replaced to produce different beam patterns, without affecting the Type B certified container. That may permit a number of different shielding configurations to be available for the source container. The extension channel may be permanently connected to the channel. However, the extension channel is preferably releasably connected to the channel. That advantageously permits replacement of the extension channel … Type B certified container is a Sentinel 880 Delta container. The source can be moved, in this embodiment using a winding mechanism operated by an ROV, out of the channel 506 and into an operation position 508 in the extension channel 504. In the operation position 508 the source is exposed and produces a beam of radiation, the shape of which is determined by the shielding 505 …” in
PNG
media_image1.png
932
1348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and paragraphs 50 and 132);
(c) a crank cable affixed to the isotope and is configured to extend the isotope out of the projector and into the collimator (e.g., “… mechanism for moving the source from the stored position to the operation position. The mechanism may comprise a winding mechanism …” in paragraph 50); and
(d) a detector is configured to capture multiple shots to create a three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction from infield gamma ray images (e.g., “… arcuate array of detectors 310 record the count rate of radiation they receive directly from the source 309. The data is analysed to produce a radially resolved tomogram of the structure 307 at the defect location … addition of the collimator (FIG. 12b) reduces the overall count level in the image because it is preventing scattered counts from hitting the detector. However, the scattered counts may not be of interest in the radiographic image and may therefore be detrimental to image quality. Comparing FIG. 12a, in which there is no collimation, with FIG. 12b, in which there is a slit collimator of depth 30 mm, it can be seen that the addition of the collimator produces a significant improvement in the clarity and contrast of the image …” in paragraphs 128 and 133).
The apparatus of Featonby et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… shielding is associated with the extension channel, rather than the Type B certified container, the shielding may be altered or replaced to produce different beam patterns … collimator …” such as the collimator comprising an aperture insert and a dense metal shutter electronically controlled and details of the “… data is analysed to produce a radially resolved tomogram …” such as order of hundreds of shots. However, “… collimator …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… collimator 13 is comprised of an aperture 17 and inserts 17a. Lead, or an equivalent material, may be selected to provide the proper shielding … an assortment of tungsten inserts 17 are selected to fit into aperture 17. It has been found through expenmentat1on that when the inserts are used they reduce the effective area from about 90 percent to about 37 percent … When wheel 15c is rotated back 180° from its operative or on-position, it is inoperative or off-position. The source 15a has the additional shielding of the holder wheel 15c superpositioned at the collimator aperture 17 when in the off-position. The operation of source 15a can be controlled by any number of well known control devices which operate or rotate the source wheel 15c …” in the last two column 2 paragraph of Hall et al. and “… When the radiation source container 10 is incorporated in a measuring instrument employing radiation, the electrically operated shutter 6 controls whether or not other control devices constituting the measuring instrument employing radiation are subjected to irradiation or screened therefrom; in this electrically operated shutter 6, a screening plate 6d made of a lead plate or tungsten plate is mounted on a mounting base 6c; the mounting base 6c is mounted on a rotary shaft of a rotary solenoid 6b and is rotated by this rotary solenoid (coil) 6b; emission of y rays from the aperture B is controlled by opening/closing the screening plate 6d; irradiation of outside the radiation source holder accommodating container 7 by y rays from the irradiation window C is thereby controlled …” in paragraph 12 of Nishikawa) and “… data …” details are also known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… Collection of the Tomographic inspection data of objects such as insulated vessels is performed using a radiation source and a detector, each with independent motion along the plane of Tomographic reconstruction adjacent to the object. The radiation source is a pencil beam of radiation particles (i.e. radiation that behaves as a particle), such as gamma-rays, x-rays, and neutrons, emitted into the Tomographic plane of reconstruction through a variety of translated position and rotation angles … Each region of the inspection plane may be targeted several times with different beam angles for the source 110 and/or detector 112. This provides independent information for each region and aids Tomographic reconstruction … With the region of interest known, the operator may switch to a high quality mode over the region of interest and thus provide high quality raw data suitable for tomography, which may also be displayed to the user. The high quality raw data will be used to generate the Tomographic images, either remotely or locally. This process saves time by eliminating the acquisition of more time consuming high quality statistics for areas not of interest for the inspection …” in paragraphs 7, 48, and 57 of Arsenault et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional collimator (e.g., comprising details such as “an assortment of tungsten inserts 17 are selected to fit into aperture 17. It has been found through expenmentat1on that when the inserts are used they reduce the effective area from about 90 percent to about 37 percent” and “emission of y rays from the aperture B is controlled by opening/closing the screening plate 6d” “made of a lead plate or tungsten plate”, in order that “the electrically operated shutter 6 controls whether or not other control devices constituting the measuring instrument employing radiation are subjected to irradiation or screened therefrom”) for the unspecified collimator of Featonby et al., also substituted a known conventional data collection (e.g., comprising details such as “acquisition of more time consuming high quality statistics”, in order to “provide high quality raw data suitable for tomography” “over the region of interest”) for the unspecified data collection and analysis of Featonby et al., and the results of the substitutions would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional tomogram analysis (e.g., comprises details such as an aperture insert and an electronically controlled shutter composed of a dense metal so as to control data collection on order of hundreds of shots) as the unspecified tomogram analysis of Featonby et al.
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 9 in so far as understood, Featonby et al. also disclose that the isotope extends out of the projector port and is placed in front of an aperture insert (e.g., “… extension channel comprises shielding such that, when the source is in the operation position, radiation from the source is emitted in a pattern determined by the shielding … shielding may be configured to produce a linear ray of radiation. The shielding may be configured to produce a fan of radiation. The shielding may be configured to produce a sector, preferably a cylindrical sector, of radiation. Because the shielding is associated with the extension channel, rather than the Type B certified container, the shielding may be altered or replaced to produce different beam patterns, without affecting the Type B certified container. That may permit a number of different shielding configurations to be available for the source container. The extension channel may be permanently connected to the channel. However, the extension channel is preferably releasably connected to the channel. That advantageously permits replacement of the extension channel … Type B certified container is a Sentinel 880 Delta container. The source can be moved, in this embodiment using a winding mechanism operated by an ROV, out of the channel 506 and into an operation position 508 in the extension channel 504. In the operation position 508 the source is exposed and produces a beam of radiation, the shape of which is determined by the shielding 505 …” in Fig. 11 and paragraphs 50 and 132).
In regard to claim 11 which is dependent on claim 9 in so far as understood, Featonby et al. also disclose that the collimator comprises an aperture insert is configured to optimize sharpness of the images and exposure time of the images (e.g., “… shielding may be altered or replaced to produce different beam patterns, without affecting the Type B certified container … arcuate array of detectors 310 record the count rate of radiation they receive directly from the source 309. The data is analysed to produce a radially resolved tomogram of the structure 307 at the defect location … addition of the collimator (FIG. 12b) reduces the overall count level in the image because it is preventing scattered counts from hitting the detector. However, the scattered counts may not be of interest in the radiographic image and may therefore be detrimental to image quality. Comparing FIG. 12a, in which there is no collimation, with FIG. 12b, in which there is a slit collimator of depth 30 mm, it can be seen that the addition of the collimator produces a significant improvement in the clarity and contrast of the image …” in paragraphs 50, 128, and 133).
In regard to claim 16, Featonby et al. disclose a portable gamma ray computed tomography (CT) system configured to capture images, comprising:
(a) a projector comprising an isotope encapsulated within a depleted uranium (e.g., “… For large sources, such as 20 to 300 Ci 192Ir sources, Type B certified source containers (Type B(U) or Type B(M) as defined in The IAEA Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material 2012 Edition Specific Safety Requirements No. SSR-6) may be required. The skilled person will be familiar with the certification of source containers and will appreciate the requirements for Type B certified containers … shielding may be lead, tungsten or depleted uranium shielding …” in paragraph 50);
(b) a collimator affixed to the projector eliminating use of a guide tube, wherein the collimator comprises a projector port affixed to the projector, facilitating insertion of the isotope into, and retraction of the isotope out of, the collimator, the isotope extending out of the projector port and being placed in front of an aperture insert (e.g., “… extension channel comprises shielding such that, when the source is in the operation position, radiation from the source is emitted in a pattern determined by the shielding … shielding may be configured to produce a linear ray of radiation. The shielding may be configured to produce a fan of radiation. The shielding may be configured to produce a sector, preferably a cylindrical sector, of radiation. Because the shielding is associated with the extension channel, rather than the Type B certified container, the shielding may be altered or replaced to produce different beam patterns, without affecting the Type B certified container. That may permit a number of different shielding configurations to be available for the source container. The extension channel may be permanently connected to the channel. However, the extension channel is preferably releasably connected to the channel. That advantageously permits replacement of the extension channel … Type B certified container is a Sentinel 880 Delta container. The source can be moved, in this embodiment using a winding mechanism operated by an ROV, out of the channel 506 and into an operation position 508 in the extension channel 504. In the operation position 508 the source is exposed and produces a beam of radiation, the shape of which is determined by the shielding 505 …” in Fig. 11 and paragraphs 50 and 132);
(c) a crank cable affixed to the isotope and is configured to extend the isotope out of the projector and into the collimator (e.g., “… mechanism for moving the source from the stored position to the operation position. The mechanism may comprise a winding mechanism …” in paragraph 50); and
(d) a detector is configured to capture multiple shots to create a three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction from infield gamma ray images (e.g., “… arcuate array of detectors 310 record the count rate of radiation they receive directly from the source 309. The data is analysed to produce a radially resolved tomogram of the structure 307 at the defect location … addition of the collimator (FIG. 12b) reduces the overall count level in the image because it is preventing scattered counts from hitting the detector. However, the scattered counts may not be of interest in the radiographic image and may therefore be detrimental to image quality. Comparing FIG. 12a, in which there is no collimation, with FIG. 12b, in which there is a slit collimator of depth 30 mm, it can be seen that the addition of the collimator produces a significant improvement in the clarity and contrast of the image …” in paragraphs 128 and 133).
The system of Featonby et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… shielding is associated with the extension channel, rather than the Type B certified container, the shielding may be altered or replaced to produce different beam patterns … collimator …” such as the collimator comprising an aperture insert and a dense metal shutter electronically controlled and details of the “… data is analysed to produce a radially resolved tomogram …” such as order of hundreds of shots. However, “… collimator …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… collimator 13 is comprised of an aperture 17 and inserts 17a. Lead, or an equivalent material, may be selected to provide the proper shielding … an assortment of tungsten inserts 17 are selected to fit into aperture 17. It has been found through expenmentat1on that when the inserts are used they reduce the effective area from about 90 percent to about 37 percent … When wheel 15c is rotated back 180° from its operative or on-position, it is inoperative or off-position. The source 15a has the additional shielding of the holder wheel 15c superpositioned at the collimator aperture 17 when in the off-position. The operation of source 15a can be controlled by any number of well known control devices which operate or rotate the source wheel 15c …” in the last two column 2 paragraph of Hall et al. and “… When the radiation source container 10 is incorporated in a measuring instrument employing radiation, the electrically operated shutter 6 controls whether or not other control devices constituting the measuring instrument employing radiation are subjected to irradiation or screened therefrom; in this electrically operated shutter 6, a screening plate 6d made of a lead plate or tungsten plate is mounted on a mounting base 6c; the mounting base 6c is mounted on a rotary shaft of a rotary solenoid 6b and is rotated by this rotary solenoid (coil) 6b; emission of y rays from the aperture B is controlled by opening/closing the screening plate 6d; irradiation of outside the radiation source holder accommodating container 7 by y rays from the irradiation window C is thereby controlled …” in paragraph 12 of Nishikawa) and “… data …” details are also known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… Collection of the Tomographic inspection data of objects such as insulated vessels is performed using a radiation source and a detector, each with independent motion along the plane of Tomographic reconstruction adjacent to the object. The radiation source is a pencil beam of radiation particles (i.e. radiation that behaves as a particle), such as gamma-rays, x-rays, and neutrons, emitted into the Tomographic plane of reconstruction through a variety of translated position and rotation angles … Each region of the inspection plane may be targeted several times with different beam angles for the source 110 and/or detector 112. This provides independent information for each region and aids Tomographic reconstruction … With the region of interest known, the operator may switch to a high quality mode over the region of interest and thus provide high quality raw data suitable for tomography, which may also be displayed to the user. The high quality raw data will be used to generate the Tomographic images, either remotely or locally. This process saves time by eliminating the acquisition of more time consuming high quality statistics for areas not of interest for the inspection …” in paragraphs 7, 48, and 57 of Arsenault et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional collimator (e.g., comprising details such as “an assortment of tungsten inserts 17 are selected to fit into aperture 17. It has been found through expenmentat1on that when the inserts are used they reduce the effective area from about 90 percent to about 37 percent” and “emission of y rays from the aperture B is controlled by opening/closing the screening plate 6d” “made of a lead plate or tungsten plate”, in order that “the electrically operated shutter 6 controls whether or not other control devices constituting the measuring instrument employing radiation are subjected to irradiation or screened therefrom”) for the unspecified collimator of Featonby et al., also substituted a known conventional data collection (e.g., comprising details such as “acquisition of more time consuming high quality statistics”, in order to “provide high quality raw data suitable for tomography” “over the region of interest”) for the unspecified data collection and analysis of Featonby et al., and the results of the substitutions would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional tomogram analysis (e.g., comprises details such as an aperture insert and an electronically controlled shutter composed of a dense metal so as to control data collection on order of hundreds of shots) as the unspecified tomogram analysis of Featonby et al.
In regard to claim 17 which is dependent on claim 16 in so far as understood, Featonby et al. also disclose that the collimator comprises an aperture insert is configured to optimize sharpness of the images and exposure time of the images (e.g., “… shielding may be altered or replaced to produce different beam patterns, without affecting the Type B certified container … arcuate array of detectors 310 record the count rate of radiation they receive directly from the source 309. The data is analysed to produce a radially resolved tomogram of the structure 307 at the defect location … addition of the collimator (FIG. 12b) reduces the overall count level in the image because it is preventing scattered counts from hitting the detector. However, the scattered counts may not be of interest in the radiographic image and may therefore be detrimental to image quality. Comparing FIG. 12a, in which there is no collimation, with FIG. 12b, in which there is a slit collimator of depth 30 mm, it can be seen that the addition of the collimator produces a significant improvement in the clarity and contrast of the image …” in paragraphs 50, 128, and 133).
Claim(s) 12-15 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Featonby et al. in view of Hall et al., Nishikawa, and Arsenault et al. as applied to claim(s) 9 and 16 above, and further in view of Sontag et al. (US 6,076,005) and Safai et al. (US 2018/0328869).
It should be noted that a length of time where the part under inspection and the detector are exposed to radiation can be labeled as an exposure.
In regard to claims 12-15 which are dependent on claim 9 in so far as understood, Featonby et al. also disclose that “radiation from the source is emitted in a pattern determined by” the collimator comprises an aperture insert “when the source is in the operation position” (e.g., see “… extension channel comprises shielding such that, when the source is in the operation position, radiation from the source is emitted in a pattern determined by the shielding … shielding may be configured to produce a linear ray of radiation. The shielding may be configured to produce a fan of radiation. The shielding may be configured to produce a sector, preferably a cylindrical sector, of radiation. Because the shielding is associated with the extension channel, rather than the Type B certified container, the shielding may be altered or replaced to produce different beam patterns, without affecting the Type B certified container. That may permit a number of different shielding configurations to be available for the source container. The extension channel may be permanently connected to the channel. However, the extension channel is preferably releasably connected to the channel. That advantageously permits replacement of the extension channel …” in paragraph 50). The apparatus of Featonby et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… radiation from the source is emitted in a pattern determined by the shielding …” such as the electronically controlled shutter configured to open and close for each exposure, wherein the electronically controlled electronically controlled shutter is configured to facilitate successive exposures without retracting the isotope back into the projector after each exposure, wherein the electronically controlled shutter is configured to unblock an aperture insert during each exposure, and wherein the electronically controlled shutter is a plate that rotates in, or slides in, to block the aperture insert. However, “… radiation from the source is emitted in a pattern determined by the shielding …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… measurements carried out in the invention may be utilized to control a gating signal which activates a source of the energy. The term "activates" is used in the broad sense of enabling the energy from the source to impinge upon the patient … the source is one which continuously generates energy-e.g. a radioactive source, and where "activation" of the source means opening of a shutter or other occluding mechanism …” in the third column 4 paragraph of Sontag et al. and “… as shown in FIG. 2B, the shutter 48 is actuated in a sideways direction 70, and away from the opening 46 of the collimator 64. The shutter 48 may be actuated by a motor (not illustrated) such as a nanomotor …” in paragraph 28 of Safai et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional shielding (e.g., comprising details such as “shutter or other occluding mechanism”, in order for “measurements carried out” using “gating signal which activates a source of the energy”) for the unspecified shielding of Featonby et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional shielding (e.g., comprises details such as the electronically controlled shutter configured to open and close for each exposure, where an exposure is a length of time where the part under inspection and the detector are exposed to radiation, wherein the electronically controlled shutter is configured to facilitate successive exposures without retracting the isotope back into the projector after each exposure, wherein the electronically controlled shutter is configured to unblock an aperture insert during each exposure, and wherein the electronically controlled shutter is a plate that rotates in, or slides in, to block the aperture insert) as the unspecified shielding of Featonby et al.
In regard to claims 18-21 which are dependent on claim 16 in so far as understood, Featonby et al. also disclose that “radiation from the source is emitted in a pattern determined by” the collimator comprises an aperture insert “when the source is in the operation position” (e.g., see “… extension channel comprises shielding such that, when the source is in the operation position, radiation from the source is emitted in a pattern determined by the shielding … shielding may be configured to produce a linear ray of radiation. The shielding may be configured to produce a fan of radiation. The shielding may be configured to produce a sector, preferably a cylindrical sector, of radiation. Because the shielding is associated with the extension channel, rather than the Type B certified container, the shielding may be altered or replaced to produce different beam patterns, without affecting the Type B certified container. That may permit a number of different shielding configurations to be available for the source container. The extension channel may be permanently connected to the channel. However, the extension channel is preferably releasably connected to the channel. That advantageously permits replacement of the extension channel …” in paragraph 50). The apparatus of Featonby et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… radiation from the source is emitted in a pattern determined by the shielding …” such as the electronically controlled shutter configured to open and close for each exposure, wherein the electronically controlled shutter is configured to facilitate successive exposures without retracting the isotope back into the projector after each exposure, wherein the electronically controlled shutter is configured to unblock an aperture insert during each exposure, and wherein the electronically controlled shutter is a plate that rotates in, or slides in, to block the aperture insert. However, “… radiation from the source is emitted in a pattern determined by the shielding …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… measurements carried out in the invention may be utilized to control a gating signal which activates a source of the energy. The term "activates" is used in the broad sense of enabling the energy from the source to impinge upon the patient … the source is one which continuously generates energy-e.g. a radioactive source, and where "activation" of the source means opening of a shutter or other occluding mechanism …” in the third column 4 paragraph of Sontag et al. and “… as shown in FIG. 2B, the shutter 48 is actuated in a sideways direction 70, and away from the opening 46 of the collimator 64. The shutter 48 may be actuated by a motor (not illustrated) such as a nanomotor …” in paragraph 28 of Safai et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional shielding (e.g., comprising details such as “shutter or other occluding mechanism”, in order for “measurements carried out” using “gating signal which activates a source of the energy”) for the unspecified shielding of Featonby et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional shielding (e.g., comprises details such as the electronically controlled shutter configured to open and close for each exposure, where an exposure is a length of time where the part under inspection and the detector are exposed to radiation, wherein the electronically controlled shutter is configured to facilitate successive exposures without retracting the isotope back into the projector after each exposure, wherein the electronically controlled shutter is configured to unblock an aperture insert during each exposure, and wherein the electronically controlled shutter is a plate that rotates in, or slides in, to block the aperture insert) as the unspecified shielding of Featonby et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but some are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant's remaining arguments filed 3 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims 1-8 are fully supported by the existing disclosure because a highlighted portion in Fig. 2 shows a handle for holding the device. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Independent claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising “a detector is configured to capture multiple shots on order of hundreds of shots to create a three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction from infield gamma ray images in field radiography”. However Fig. 2 shows a handle for moving a single component (210 in Fig. 2) of the apparatus. Further, specification paragraph 23 states “By using electronically controlled shutter 220, successive exposures are enabled without the need to retract isotope 250 back into projector body 210 after each exposure. This allows for the operator to approach the inspection area”. Therefore, the newly added claim limitations fail to be supported by the specification through express, implicit, or inherent support.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,096,148 teaches a portable x-ray computed tomography.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 at (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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights