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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendment filed 05 February 2026 wherein: claims 1-19 are amended claims 1-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (page 7, first line through page 9, last line), filed 05 February 2026 have been fully considered.
35 U.S.C. § 112(f) Claim Interpretation and Associated 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) Rejections
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) are not persuasive. Changing one nonce term, “apparatus”, to another, “device”, does not add any more structural limitations to the claim sufficient to avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretations are maintained and updated below, and the corresponding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections are also maintained.
Further 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) Rejections
Examiner acknowledges the further 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections due to “preferably”, “optionally”, and “more preferably” limitations have been overcome by amendment.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are not persuasive. Independent claims 1 and 19 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman (US 2016/0334345 A1) in view of Steele (US 4,803,639 A).
Claims 1 and 19 are presently amended to include a new limitation pertaining to first and second sets of objects. Examiner acknowledges the prior rejection does not address these new limitations. However, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, thus new limitation is taught by Freeman, as described in the updated rejection below, which relies upon new portions of Freeman for the new limitation.
Claim Objection
Examiner acknowledges the prior claim objection has been overcome due to amendment.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 § U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claims 1 and 19
Claims 1 and 19 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, the limitation “imaging beam emitting device” uses the generic placeholder “device” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to any means capable of being an unidentified x-ray emitting element comprising an unidentified tungsten metal element, an unidentified gamma ray emitting element, or an unidentified ultrasound emitting element (Applicant’s specification, p. 11, second paragraph) because no corresponding structure is described in Applicant’s specification.
The limitation “imaging beam detecting device” uses the generic placeholder “element” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to any means capable of performing the claimed function because no corresponding structure is described in Applicant’s specification.
Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 112
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.
Claims 1-19
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 19
Regarding claims 1 and 19, for each claim:
One or more claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, as described above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR § 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-18
Regarding claims 2-18, the claims are rejected due to their dependence.
Further, recitations of “the object” lack sufficient antecedent basis because “an object”, “a first set of objects”, and “a second set of objects” are recited in claim 1, and therefore the claims are unclear as to which object is being referenced.
Claims 5-12 recite a “plurality of objects”. The claims are unclear as to whether this recitation is the same or different from the first and second sets of objects recited in claim 1.
The recitation of “the same material as the object” in claim 15 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 18 is further indefinite because a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c)(I). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “a computational tomography, CT, scanning apparatus”, and the claim also recites “a three-dimensional, 3DCT scanning apparatus” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim. A narrower range or preferred embodiment may also be set forth in another independent claim or in a dependent claim. The claim language is also non-idiomatic.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102–103) 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 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 C.F.R. § 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 11-12, and 18-19
Claims 1-5, 7, 11-12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman (US 2016/0334345 A1) in view of Steele (US 4,803,639 A).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Examiner provides a copy of Figure 13 of Freeman below, annotated by Examiner to show features of Applicant’s claimed inventions.
PNG
media_image1.png
1121
1454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 13 of Freeman, annotated by Examiner, showing three single objects/turbine blades (12) which are placed on a rotating support (20) with an axis of rotation (21), each object (12) having a leading edge (35), a trailing edge (30), a concave blade surface, and a convex blade surface.
As claim 1 is best understood, Freeman discloses a method for scanning of an object (1, 11-12) in a scanning apparatus including an imaging beam emitting device (3) that emits an imaging beam, a support (19-20) on which the object (1, 11-12) is placed, and an imaging beam detecting device (element 7 in Fig. 1 for two-dimensional imaging, element 9 in Fig. 2 for three-dimensional imaging) that detects the imaging beam having passed through the object (1, 11-12), the method comprising:
disposing the object (1, 11-12) on the support of the scanning apparatus, so that the object (1, 11-12) is positioned between the imaging beam emitting device (3) and the imaging beam detecting device (7 or 9) oppositely disposed to either side of the support, wherein
the support (19-20) is rotatable about an axis of rotation (21) to allow creation of an image of the object (1, 11-12) from projections each taken at a different angle of rotation; and
the object (1, 11-12) is positioned on the support (19-20) so that a part to be scanned of the object (1, 11-12) is offset from the axis of rotation (21); and
operating the scanning apparatus at the multiple angles of rotation to produce an image of the object (1, 11-12) offset,
wherein a first set of objects (1, 11-12) are disposed on the support (19-20) so as to form a rotational symmetry among the first set of objects (1, 11-12) about the axis of rotation (21), and a second set of objects (1, 11-12) are disposed on the support (19-20) so as to form another rotational symmetry among the second set of objects (1, 11-12) about the axis of rotation (21; Abstract, ¶¶ 57-62, 73-79, Figs. 1-2, 12-13; ¶ 64: “The support 19 comprises a generally planar platform 20, and is configured to be rotatable about an axis of rotation 21 which is orthogonal to the platform 20”; ¶ 77: “a number of discrete arrays of blades with the above-described properties could be arranged in spaced-apart relation along the axis of rotation 21, (for example by providing the support 19 with a plurality of spaced apart platforms 19 with associated mounting sockets 22) thereby permitting a larger number of blades 11 to be mounted onto the rotatable support 19 at a time without adversely affecting the CT scanning performance of the arrangement”; that is, by having a plurality of the platform/object arrangements as shown in Fig. 13, spaced apart along the axis of rotation, Freeman teaches the claimed first set of objects (on a first platform of the support) and the claimed second set of objects (on a second platform of the support)).
While Freeman discloses the imaging beam emitting element emits x-rays as described above, Freeman does not expressly disclose the imaging beam emitting element comprises tungsten.
Steele discloses an x-ray inspection tube for inspecting an engine blade (col. 5, l. 45 – col. 2, l. 64. Figs. 1-2), wherein an imaging beam emitting element (12) is a tungsten x-ray tube (col. 7, ll. 34-46).
It 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 to have modified the invention of Freeman, in view of the teachings of Steele, so that the imaging beam emitting element is a tungsten x-ray tube.
One would have been motivated to do so to use a relatively more efficient x-ray source as compared to using an x-ray source using a material with a lower atomic number than tungsten.
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Freeman modified teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a single object (11-12) is provided for scanning on the support (19-20), and no part or no part to be scanned of the object (11-12) intersects the axis of rotation (21; Freeman, ¶¶ 73-79, Figs. 12-13; three single objects (11-12) are shown in the Figures 12-13; the claim does not recite only a single object is provided for scanning; even if this were claimed, only a single object is shown in Figures 1-2).
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Freeman modified teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the object (11-12) is a turbine blade with a leading edge (35) and a trailing edge (30) separated by blade surfaces, and the leading edge (35) is disposed closer to the axis of rotation (21) than the trailing edge (30; Freeman, ¶¶ 73-76, Fig. 13; blade surfaces shown in Figure).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Freeman modified teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the object (11-12) is a turbine blade with a leading edge (35) and a trailing edge (30) separated by a concave blade surface opposite to a convex blade surface, and the convex blade surface is disposed farther from the axis of rotation than the concave blade surface (Freeman, ¶¶ 73-76, Fig. 13; blade surfaces shown in Figure).
While Freeman modified teaches the concave blade surface is farther from the axis of rotation than the concave blade surface, Freeman modified does not expressly disclose the only possible alternative arrangement wherein the concave blade surface is closer to the axis of rotation than the concave blade surface.
It 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 to have further modified the invention of Freeman to use the only other possible configuration, as it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
One would have been motivated to do so to more easily observe the concave surfaces during scanning.
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Freeman modified teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of objects (11-12), each offset from the axis of rotation (21), are disposed on the support (19-20), and not part or no part to be scanned of any of the plurality of objects (11-12) intersects the axis of rotation (21; Freeman, ¶¶ 73-79, Figs. 12-13).
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Freeman modified teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein each of the plurality of objects (11-12) is a turbine blade with a leading edge (35) and a trailing edge (30) separated by a concave blade surface opposite to a convex blade surface, and the convex blade surface of each turbine blade faces away from the axis of rotation (21 Freeman, ¶¶ 73-76, Fig. 13; blade surfaces shown in Figure).
While Freeman modified teaches the concave blade surface faces away from the axis of rotation, Freeman modified does not expressly disclose one of only two other possible alternative arrangements wherein the concave blade surface faces the axis of rotation (the third arrangement would be the concave blade surfaces facing neither toward or away from the axis of rotation).
It 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 to have further modified the invention of Freeman to use one of the only two other possible configurations, as it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
One would have been motivated to do so to more easily observe the concave surfaces during scanning.
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Freeman modified teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein there is a plurality of objects (11) grouped in a configuration directly adjacent to each other and the objects are elongate in cross section and a shape of the configuration formed by the combined shape of the objects in the configuration has a lower aspect ratio than a single one of the objects, and the aspect ratio of the configuration is less than two thirds of the aspect ratio of a single one of the objects (Freeman, ¶¶ 73-76, Fig. 13; reduced aspect ratio can be seen in the Figure; reducing by at least two thirds would have been obvious because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Freeman modified teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the plurality of objects (11) are turbine blades, each with a leading edge (35) and a trailing edge (30) separated by blade surfaces, and the turbine blades are positioned in the configuration in alternate head to toe configuration with the leading edge of one blade positioned adjacent to the trailing edge of the adjacent blade (Freeman, ¶¶ 73-76, Fig. 13; blade surfaces shown in Figure).
Claim 18
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Freeman modified teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the scanning apparatus is a computational tomography, CT, scanning apparatus (two- or three-dimensional), and the imaging beam is an x-ray (Freeman, ¶¶ 57-62).
Claim 19
Regarding claim 19, see the annotated copy of Figure 13 of Freeman provided in the rejection of claim 1 above.
As claim 19 is best understood, Freeman discloses a combination of a scanning apparatus for scanning of an object (1, 11-12) and an object (1, 11-12) in the scanning apparatus, the scanning apparatus comprising: a support (19-20) on which the object (11-12) is placed; and an imaging beam emitting device (3) that emits an imaging beam; and an imaging beam receiving device (element 7 in Fig. 1 for two-dimensional imaging, element 9 in Fig. 2 for three-dimensional imaging) that detects the imaging beam having passed through the object (1, 11-12), the imaging beam emitting device (3) and the imaging beam detecting device (7 or 9) oppositely disposed to either side of the support (19-20), wherein the imaging beam emitting device (3) is an x-ray source, wherein the support (19-20) is rotatable about an axis of rotation (2, 21) to allow creation of an image of a part to be scanned of the object (1, 11-12) from projections each taken at a different relative angle of rotation; a part of the object (1, 11-12) to be scanned is positioned on the support (19-20) offset from the axis of rotation (21; as seen in Figs. 12-13); so that when the scanning apparatus is operated at the multiple relative angles of rotation it produces an image of the part to be scanned of the object (11-12) at a position which does not overlap the axis of rotation (21); and a first set of objects (1, 11-12) are disposed on the support (19-20) so as to form a rotational symmetry among the first set of objects (1, 11-12) about the axis of rotation (21), and a second set of objects (1, 11-12) are disposed on the support (19-20) so as to form another rotational symmetry among the second set of objects (1, 11-12) about the axis of rotation (21; Abstract, ¶¶ 57-62, 73-79, Figs. 1-2, 12-13; imaging or scanning an entire object necessarily includes imaging or scanning a part of the object; ¶ 64: “The support 19 comprises a generally planar platform 20, and is configured to be rotatable about an axis of rotation 21 which is orthogonal to the platform 20”; ¶ 77: “a number of discrete arrays of blades with the above-described properties could be arranged in spaced-apart relation along the axis of rotation 21, (for example by providing the support 19 with a plurality of spaced apart platforms 19 with associated mounting sockets 22) thereby permitting a larger number of blades 11 to be mounted onto the rotatable support 19 at a time without adversely affecting the CT scanning performance of the arrangement”; that is, by having a plurality of the platform/object arrangements as shown in Fig. 13, spaced apart along the axis of rotation, Freeman teaches the claimed first set of objects (on a first platform of the support) and the claimed second set of objects (on a second platform of the support)).
While Freeman discloses the imaging beam emitting element emits x-rays as described above, Freeman does not expressly disclose the imaging beam emitting element comprises tungsten.
Steele discloses an x-ray inspection tube for inspecting an engine blade (col. 5, l. 45 – col. 2, l. 64. Figs. 1-2), wherein an imaging beam emitting element (12) is a tungsten x-ray tube (col. 7, ll. 34-46).
It 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 to have modified the invention of Freeman, in view of the teachings of Steele, so that the imaging beam emitting element is a tungsten x-ray tube.
One would have been motivated to do so to use a relatively more efficient x-ray source as compared to using an x-ray source using a material with a lower atomic number than tungsten.
Claim 6
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman in view of Steele as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Hunt (US 2006/0056577 A1).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Freeman modified teaches the method according to claim 5, but does not expressly disclose the plurality of objects are disposed on the support so that a notional line drawn from the imaging beam emitting device to the imaging beam detecting device through the axis of rotation intersects two or more of the plurality of objects for at least a third of the projections.
Hunt discloses an x-ray CT scanning system (20) wherein a plurality of objects (32) are disposed on a support (30) so that a notional line drawn from an imaging beam emitting device (22) to an imaging beam detecting device (24) through an axis of rotation intersects two or more (i.e., all) of the plurality of objects (32) for at least a third of the projections (¶¶ 32-42, Figs. 1-2B).
It 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 to have further modified the invention of Freeman, in view of the teachings of Hunt, so that the plurality of objects are disposed on the support so that a notional line drawn from the imaging beam emitting device to the imaging beam detecting device through the axis of rotation intersects two or more of the plurality of objects for at least a third of the projections.
One would have been motivated to do so to be able to image more objects as compared to not having such intersections.
Claims 13-15
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman in view of Steele as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Tanaka (US 4,601,050 A).
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Freeman modified teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the object is positioned offset to the axis of rotation, and not part of the object to be scanned intersects the axis of rotation, as described in the rejections of claim 1-2 above.
Freeman modified does not expressly disclose the object is contained within a jacket, with a volume surrounding the object within the jacket being occupied by a filling material or a solid jacket volume, the jacket being positioned offset to the axis of rotation, so that the jacket does not intersect the axis of rotation.
Tanaka discloses an X-ray computed tomography apparatus wherein an object (1) is contained within a jacket (2), with the volume surrounding the object (1) within the jacket (2) being occupied by a filling material (3; col. 1, l. 50 - col. 4, l. 56; Figs. 1-2).
It 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 to have further modified the invention of Freeman, in view of the teachings of Tanaka, so that the plurality of objects is disposed on the support so that each
object is contained within a jacket, with a volume surrounding the object within the jacket being occupied by a filling material or a solid jacket volume, the jacket being positioned offset to the axis of rotation, so that the jacket does not intersect the axis of rotation.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Tanaka of using a filling material which matches the X-ray absorption coefficient of the object to obtain clearer images in order to see defects (Tanaka, col. 1, ll. 50-59).
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Freeman modified teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the filling material (3) has an imaging beam attenuation (X-ray absorption coefficient) close to an imaging beam attenuation of a material of the object (1; Tanaka, col. 1, l. 50 - col. 4, l. 56; see rejection of claim 13 above).
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Freeman modified teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the filling material (3) is in the form of a metal powder,
wherein the metal powder is a same material as the object (the object can be a composite of ceramic and metals; in the silicon nitride example, both the object and the filling material are silicon nitride, i.e., the same material; one would have reasonably been expected to be able to apply this to other object materials, such as metal, to match attenuation coefficients as described in the rejection of claim 14 above; Tanaka, col. 1, l. 50 - col. 4, l. 56; see rejection of claim 13 above).
Claim 16
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman in view of Steele and Tanaka as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hunt.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Freeman modified teaches the method according to claim 13, but does not expressly disclose a border region at least partially surrounding the object in the jacket with an imaging beam attenuation different from the imaging beam attenuation of the object, and the border region is formed by inserting the object into a protective film, wall, or sleeve.
Hunt discloses an x-ray CT scanning system (20) wherein a plurality of objects (32) is disposed on a support (30), wherein a border region (52) partially surrounds the object in a jacket (50) with an imaging beam attenuation different from the imaging beam attenuation of the object (32), and the border region is formed by inserting the object (32) into a protective film, wall, or sleeve (of element 50; system in ¶¶ 32-42, Figs. 1-2B; different attenuation (absorption, peak at 202 for border region 52, peak at 204 for object (32)) in ¶¶ 43-44, Fig. 9).
It 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 to have further modified the invention of Freeman, in view of the teachings of Hunt, to include a border region at least partially surrounding the object in the jacket with an imaging beam attenuation different from the imaging beam attenuation of the object, and the border region is formed by inserting the object into a protective film, wall, or sleeve.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage suggested by Hunt of being able to image multiple objects while still being able to identify and separate image data from the border region data (Hunt, ¶¶ 43-44).
Claim 17
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman in view of Steele and Tanaka as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Guzman (US 2014/0119497 A1)
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Freeman modified teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the jacket (2) has a circular cross-section and comprises a cylindrical side wall extending from a base (Tanaka, col. 1, l. 50 - col. 4, l. 56; Fig. 1, cylindrical shape shown in Figure; see rejection of claim 13 above).
Freeman modified does not expressly disclose the base and the side wall are formed of a polymer film or wall containing the filling material.
Guzman discloses a container (encapsulant) for an object (sample) to be scanned with x-rays, wherein the container is formed of a polymer film (¶¶ 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the invention of Freeman in view of the teachings of Guzman so that the side wall are formed of a polymer film.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Guzman of stabilizing and facilitating handling of the object (sample; Guzman, ¶ 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections were overcome. Claims 9-10 would be allowable due to their dependence on claim 8. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art does not expressly disclose or suggest further objects are positioned in a pattern on inner vertices of a further notional regular geometric figure centered on the axis of rotation and inside the notional regular geometric figure, in combination with the other elements of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches some elements of the claim. See the rejections of claims 1 and 5 above. Freeman modified teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the plurality of objects (11-12) are positioned in a pattern on vertices of a notional regular geometric figure (e.g., a triangle or hexagon) centered on the axis of rotation (Freeman, ¶¶ 73-76, Fig. 13).
While placing multiple objects on a support for X-ray CT scanning was generally known in the art, the cited prior art does not expressly disclose or suggest Applicant’s particularly claimed configuration. Accordingly, claim 8 would be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McCroskey (US 5,023,895 A) discloses an industrial CT system for three dimensional imaging which includes a three dimensional cone beam of hard radiation fixed with respect to a two dimensional scintillation detector array, wherein an object is positioned on a turntable interposed between the radiation source and the detector array, wherein data from two dimensional views are stored as the object is rotated on the turntable about a fixed axis, wherein the data is sufficient upon completion of one revolution to construct a transparent three dimensional image of the object (Abstract).
Christoph (US 2015/0355113 A1) discloses a computer tomography sensor made of a radiation source 1, here an X-ray radiation source, a beam detector 2, and a mechanical axis of rotation 30, the rotating part 32 thereof being able to rotate in the direction of an arrow labeled as 3, that is about an axis parallel to the X-axis, shown by the arrow labeled x (¶ 84, Fig. 1).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE RIDDICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1865. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm ET, with flexible scheduling.
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 571-272-2995. 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.
Blake C. Riddick, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights