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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/07/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment, filed 04/21/2025 has been accepted and entered. Claims 21 has been amended. Claim 20 has been canceled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-7, 9-18 and 21-31 are pending.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments/remarks, see pgs. 7-8, filed 11/07/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 9-18 and 22-31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al. (US Re. 28,544)(“Stein”), and further in view of Annis (US 5,224,144) and Smith (US 5,181,234), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant points to Applicant’s own Specification at para. [0072] to define “substantial confinement”, [0072] states:
“As used herein, "substantial confinement" of x-ray radiation denotes that the disk chopper wheel and source-side scatter plate are arranged relative to each other with gaps, plate width, etc. such that x-ray leakage of scattered radiation is limited to no more than 50% leakage of the radiation that is scattered by the wheel, or to an x-ray radiation dose of no more than 5 milli-Rem per hour at a distance of 5 cm away from an outer surface of the assembly, whichever is greater. The substantial confinement may further include limiting leakage of scattered radiation to no more than 10% of radiation that is scattered by the assembly, or to a radiation dose of no more than 0.5 milli-Rem per hour at a distance of 5 cm away from the outer surface of the assembly, such as from the outer surface of the support structure, whichever is greater.”
The Examiner also points to Applicant’s Spec. at [0072] which states “…the disk chopper wheel and source-side scatter plate are arranged relative to each other with gaps, plate width, etc. such that x-ray leakage of scattered radiation is limited to no more than 50% leakage of the radiation that is scattered by the wheel, or to an x-ray radiation dose of no more than 5 milli-Rem per hour at a distance of 5 cm away…The substantial confinement may further include limiting leakage of scattered radiation to no more than 10% of radiation that is scattered by the assembly, or to a radiation dose of no more than 0.5 milli-Rem per hour at a distance of 5 cm away from the outer surface of the assembly….” The Examiner refers to Applicant’s claims 1, 24 and 28, which do not establish numerical limitations (as reflected in Applicant’s Spec. at [0072] and disclosed above) for being “substantially smaller”, “substantially parallel” and “substantially confine” in claims 1, 24 and 28.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-18, 22-24, 25-27 and 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al. (US Re. 28,544) hereinafter known as Stein, and further in view of Annis (US 5,224,144) and Smith (US 5,181,234).
With regards to claim 1, 24 and 28, Stein discloses an x-ray chopper wheel assembly (Fig. 2; slit collimator 17 and collimation disk 18) and a method of confining x-ray radiation to be scattered from an x-ray chopper wheel, comprising:
a chopper wheel (col. 2; lines 22-35; collimation disc 18) (i) defining at least one opening (col. 2; lines 22-35; radial slits), configured to pass x-ray radiation from an x-ray source (X-ray tube 14) at a source side of the chopper wheel 18 to an output side 23 of the chopper wheel 18, and (ii) having a solid cross-sectional area in a rotation plane thereof (see 18); and
a plate (slit collimator 17) having a solid cross-sectional area (see 17), in a plane parallel to the rotation plane of the disk chopper wheel 18 that is smaller than the solid cross-sectional area of the chopper wheel (Fig. 2 shows that the slit collimator 17 is smaller than the collimation disc 18.), the plate 17 disposed in a plane substantially parallel to the rotation plane of the disk chopper wheel 18 and arranged relative to the disk chopper wheel 18 to substantially confine x-ray radiation scattered therefrom (Col. 2; lines 51-55 teaches that the source 14, slit collimator 17, and collimation disk 18 are preferably housed relatively close together in an enclosure that shields radiation so that the only significant radiant energy that escapes is that in pencil beam 23. Based on this configuration, the scattered x-ray radiation from the plate and disk chopper wheel would be confined within the structure according to the claim recitation.)
As stated, the reference teaches that the source 14, slit collimator 17, and collimation disk 18 are relatively close together for the them production of a pencil beam (col. 2; lines 51-55). The reference further teaches that x-rays from the source 14 and slit collimator 17 are incident upon the rotating collimation disc 18 having an array of peripheral radial slits for intercepting fan beam 16 for the production of the pencil beam 23 (col. 2; lines 22-35). Further, the reference displays the disk chopper wheel 18 being smaller than the solid cross-sectional area of the chopper wheel (Fig. 2 shows that the slit collimator 17 is smaller than the collimation disc 18.)
Stein do not specifically disclose that the chopper wheel configured to absorb x-ray radiation from the x-ray source. Stein do not disclose that the plate (slit collimator 17) having a solid cross-sectional area is substantially smaller than the solid cross-sectional area of the chopper wheel.
In the same field of endeavor, Annis discloses a flying spot scanner/chopper wheel having radially oriented slits 46 and reduced mass (Abstract; Fig. 3). Annis teaches that the flying spot scanner comprises a ring 42 of high Z material provided in a wheel of aluminum or other material 44 (col. 4; lines 50-55). Col. 5; lines 19-27 and Fig. 4, teaches of an inspection system that utilizes a chopper wheel 68 having a lead ring 70 (see also col. 3-4 which teaches of a chopper wheel comprised of an annular disk or doughnut shaped insert 32 of a high Z material such as lead, which is inserted in a aluminum wheel 34). Finally, the reference teaches that the lead doughnut is used to sufficiently absorb x-rays from the source (col. 4; lines 28-34) for the generation of the pencil beam (col. 4; lines 5-15).
In view of Annis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to exchange the collimation disk of Stein with a chopper wheel comprising of a ring of high Z material, such as lead, within a wheel of aluminum. The motivation is to utilize a lead-lined chopper wheel which can absorb scattered x-rays from the source and plate as well as generate a pencil beam/flying spot that is used to scan an object.
Modified Stein do not disclose the disk chopper wheel being substantially smaller than the solid cross-sectional area of the chopper wheel
Smith discloses a mechanical means of generating a sweeping pencil beam (col. 4; lines 38-65; Fig. 11). Fig. 1 displays a chopper wheel 14 and slit 15 “plate” used for generating a pencil beam (col. 4; lines 46-53). Fig. 11 shows that the slit plate solid cross-sectional area can be considered to be “substantially smaller” than the solid cross-sectional area of the chopper wheel.
In view of Smith, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a slit plate/collimator that has a solid cross section area substantially smaller than the solid cross-sectional area of the chopper wheel. The motivation is to gain a compact, lightweight chopper assembly that can generate x-ray pencil beams utilized for scanning an object.
With regards to claim 2, Stein displays a collimator disc 18 and slit collimator 17 wherein the slit collimator 17 solid cross-sectional area is less than the cross-sectional area of the collimator disc/chopper wheel 18. Smith discloses the slit plate 15 solid cross-sectional area being “substantially smaller” than the solid cross-sectional area of the chopper wheel 14. However, modified Stein do not specifically disclose the assembly of claim 1, wherein the solid cross-sectional area of the plate is less than 50%, less than 25%, or less than 10% of the cross-sectional area of the chopper wheel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within to utilize a plate having a solid cross-sectional are within the claimed percentages for the purpose of gaining a lightweight, compact chopper assemble that can that can generate x-ray pencil beams that are utilized for scanning an object.
With regards to claim 3, modified Stein discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the plate (Stein; 17) is further disposed with gap between the scatter plate (see the 112 rejection above) and the chopper wheel (Stein; 18). Stein further teaches that the rotating collimation disc 18 have an array of peripheral radial slits 21 for intercepting fan beam 16, from the slit collimator 17, to produce pencil beam 23 (col. 2; lines 22-28.
Modified Stein do not specifically disclose that the gap is in a range of approximately 0.2 mm to approximately 2.0 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art to have a gap between the plate and chopper wheel being within the range of approximately 0.2 mm to approximately 2.0 mm for the purpose of matching the chopper wheel’s radial slits to the fan beam emerging from the slit plate. The motivation is the optimal generation of pencil beams.
With regards to claim 4, modified Stein discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the plate comprises tungsten or another high-Z material (Annis; col. 1; lines 31-36; lead).
Modified Stein do no specifically disclose a plate having thickness on the order of 1.0 mm. However, due to the need for the plate to absorb x-rays utilizing a high-Z material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art to utilize a plate having a thickness on the order of 1.0 mm to minimize the size and weight of the plate while maintaining enough thickness to absorb x-rays.
With regards to claim 5, modified Stein discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the solid cross-sectional area of the plate (Smith; Fig. 3; 15) is in a range of about 100% to about 5,000% larger than an open cross-sectional area of one of the at least opening (Stein; col. 2; lines 22-28; peripheral radial slits) in the rotation plane of the disk chopper wheel (Smith; Fig. 3; 14).
With regards to claim 6, modified Stein discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the plate (Smith; Fig. 3; 15) has a plate width in a direction parallel to a radial direction of the chopper wheel (Smith; Fig. 3; 14), the plate width being in a range of about 10% to about 70% greater than a length of the at least opening in the radial direction (Stein; col. 2; lines 22-28; peripheral radial slits).
With regards to claim 7, modified Stein discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the plate is formed of a material selected from the group consisting of lead, tin, iron, er tungsten, and alloys thereof. (Annis; col. 1; lines 31-36; lead)
With regards to claim 9, modified Stein discloses the assembly of claim 1, further comprising a support structure (Stein; Fig. 2; vertically movable platform 41) is further configured to secure the plate (Stein; Fig. 2; 17) substantially parallel to the rotation plane of the disk chopper wheel (Stein; 18) and to arrange the plate to substantially confine the scattered x-ray radiation scattered (see the rejection of claim 1).
With regards to claim 10, modified Stein discloses the assembly of claim 9, wherein the support structure is further configured to secure the disk chopper wheel at a rotation axis thereof. (Stein; col. 3; lines 35-39)
With regards to claim 11, modified Stein discloses the assembly of claim 9, wherein the support structure includes an inner portion configured to secure the chopper wheel at the rotation axis thereof, the support structure further including one or more radial spokes extending from the inner portion and configured to secure the source-side scatter plate. (see the 112 rejection above)
With regards to claim 12, modified Stein discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the support structure (see the 112 rejection above)(Stein; Fig. 2; vertically movable platform 41) includes a source-side portion (Stein; 14) and an output-side portion, the source-side and output-side portions configured to be connected together and to secure the disk chopper wheel therebetween. (see the 112 rejection above)
With regards to claim 13, modified Stein discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the support structure is formed of aluminum. (see the 112 rejection above)
With regards to claim 14, modified Stein discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the support structure is configured to be mounted within a handheld x-ray scanner. (see the 112 rejection above)
With regards to claim 15, modified Stein discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the support structure is configured to be mounted within a fixed-mount scanning system (Stein; Fig. 2). (see the 112 rejection above)
With regards to claim 16, modified Stein discloses the assembly of claim 1, further comprising a shield structure configured to enclose the x-ray radiation in a region of travel between the x-ray source and the scatter plate. (Stein; col. 2; lines 49-55) (see the 112 rejection above)
With regards to claim 17, modified Stein discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the x-ray source is configured to output x-rays having an energy in a range of about 120 kiloelectron volts (keV) to about 450 keV. (Stein; col. 4-5; lines 65-5; 150 kv)
With regards to claim 18, modified Stein discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the plate is configured to output a fan beam of x-rays through an open slot therein, and wherein the assembly is configured to output a pencil beam of x-rays. (Stein; col. 2; lines 16-35)
With regards to claim 22, modified Stein discloses the assembly of claim 9, wherein the support structure includes a housing configured to enclose the chopper wheel (Stein; col. 2; lines 49-55). (see the 112 rejection above)
With regards to claim 23, modified Stein discloses the assembly of claim 22, wherein the housing is unshielded as to the substantial confinement of scattered x-ray radiation scattered from the chopper wheel. (Stein; Fig. 2)
With regards to claim 25, modified Stein discloses the method of claim 24, wherein disposing the plate (Stein; Fig. 2; 17) includes securing the plate with respect to the chopper wheel (Stein; Fig. 2; 18) using a support structure (Stein; Fig. 2; 41).
With regards to claim 26, modified Stein discloses the method of claim 25, wherein using the support structure (Stein; Fig. 2; 41) includes using a housing configured to enclose the chopper wheel. (Stein; col. 2; lines 49-55)
With regards to claim 27, modified Stein discloses the method of claim 26, wherein the housing is unshielded as to substantial confinement of scattered x-ray radiation (Stein; col. 2; lines 49-55).
With regards to claim 29, modified Stein discloses the method of claim 28, wherein substantially confining further includes using a support structure (Stein; Fig. 2; 41) that secures the plate (Stein; Fig. 2; 17) in the plane substantially parallel to the rotation plane (Stein; Fig. 2; 18).
With regards to claim 30, modified Stein discloses the method of claim 29, wherein using the support structure includes using a housing that encloses the chopper wheel. (Stein; col. 2; lines 49-55)
With regards to claim 31, modified Stein discloses the method of claim 30, wherein the housing is unshielded as to substantial confinement of scattered x-ray radiation. (Stein; col. 2; lines 49-55)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 21, modified Stein do not specifically disclose the assembly of claim 1, wherein the substantial confinement limits leakage of scattered radiation to no more than 50% of scattered radiation or to a dose of no more than 5 milli-Rem per hour at a distance of 5 cm away from an outer surface of the assembly, whichever is greater.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGH H MAUPIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00 pm.
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 J. Makiya can be reached at 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.
/HUGH MAUPIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884