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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: “a configuration” on line 2 in claim 3 should probably be --the configuration--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 4,601,050) in view of Hunt et al. (US 2006/0056577).
In regard to claim 1, Tanaka discloses a method for scanning a plurality of turbine blades in a scanning apparatus, each turbine blade of the plurality of turbine blades having a leading edge and a trailing edge separated by blade surfaces (e.g., see the “… 8 blades …” in Fig. 4 and the second column 4 paragraph), the method comprising:
(a) disposing the plurality of turbine blades on a support of the scanning apparatus, so that the plurality of turbine blades are positioned between an imaging beam emitting element and an imaging beam receiving element oppositely disposed to either side of the support, wherein the support is rotatable relative to the emitting and receiving elements about an axis of rotation to allow creation of an image from projections each taken at a different relative angle of rotation, the plurality of turbine blades being positioned adjacent each other on the support in a configuration that reduces the variation in material thickness penetrated at the multiple relative angles of rotation (e.g., “… cylindrical body shape … X-ray source and a detector are rotated for scanning about the axis of the container … pair of molds is formed by the silicone rubber so as to fit around the shape of the ceramic article. When testing, the ceramic article can be placed in these molds. In this case, only the complex shaped portion of the ceramic article can be placed in the molds, and the whole ceramic article need not be placed therein. Accordingly, it is important for the test that a combination of the ceramic article and the filling material fitted thereto has a simple shape … 8 blades … cylindrical container …” in the last column 2 paragraph and the second and third column 4 paragraphs or alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that “a simple shape” such as “cylindrical body shape” has a reduced material thickness variation at multiple relative angles “rotated for scanning about the axis of the container”); and
(b) operating the scanning apparatus at the multiple relative angles of rotation to produce an image of the plurality of turbine blades (e.g., “… when a ceramic article of a complex shape is placed in a material having an X-ray absorption coefficient equivalent to that of the ceramic, the material fills any recesses in the ceramic article so that the overall object to be tested has a simple, apparent shape. Then, the object will have a uniform contrast, no artifact will be generated, and a CT image clearly displaying any present defects will be obtained …” in the sixth column 1 paragraph),
The method of Tanaka lacks an explicit description of details of the “… nondestructively checking …” such as an alternate head to toe arrangement with the leading edge of one blade positioned adjacent to the trailing edge of an adjacent blade. However, NDT details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… destructive testing process has the disadvantage of destroying the sample, causing new defects during the cutting process and not allowing a large sample or all of the pieces to be inspected … CT apparatus 20 is illustrated in which the parts 32 are positioned within a container 50 and the container 50 is then mounted on the part support 30. The container 50 includes a plurality of partitions 52 which together form a plurality of compartments 54 with one part 32 being positioned within each compartment. The positioning of the parts 32 within their individual compartments 54 may be either symmetrical or asymmetrical. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 3, each compartment 54 may include its own fixture 56, such as a molded base, to orient the part 32 in a predetermined orientation within its individual compartment 54 …” in paragraphs 5 and 42 of Hunt 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 NDT (e.g., comprising details such as “symmetrical or asymmetrical”, in order to avoid “destructive testing” and also achieve “all of the pieces to be inspected”) for the unspecified NDT of Tanaka 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 NDT (e.g., comprising details such as the plurality of turbine blades are positioned in an alternate head to toe arrangement with the leading edge of one turbine blade of the plurality of turbine blades positioned adjacent to the trailing edge of an adjacent turbine blade of the plurality of turbine blades) as the unspecified NDT of Tanaka.
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1, Tanaka also discloses that the plurality of turbine blades (e.g., “… 8 blades …” in the second column 4 paragraph) are positioned offset from the axis of rotation (e.g., “… X-ray source and a detector are rotated for scanning about the axis of the container …” in the last column 2 paragraph).
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 1, Tanaka also discloses that the plurality of turbine blades are elongate in cross section and a shape of a configuration formed by a combined shape of the plurality of turbine blades in the configuration has a lower aspect ratio than a single one turbine blade of the plurality of turbine blades (e.g., see the “… 8 blades …” in Fig. 1 and the second column 4 paragraph).
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 1, Tanaka also discloses that the leading edge and the trailing edge of the plurality of turbine blades are separated by a concave blade surface opposite to a convex blade surface (e.g., see the “… 8 blades …” in Fig. 4 and the second column 4 paragraph).
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1, the method of Tanaka lacks an explicit description of details of the “… nondestructively checking …” such as the plurality of turbine blades is disposed on the support so that a notional line drawn from the emitting element to the receiving element through the axis of rotation intersects two or more turbine blades of the plurality of turbine blades for at least a third of the projections. However, NDT details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… destructive testing process has the disadvantage of destroying the sample, causing new defects during the cutting process and not allowing a large sample or all of the pieces to be inspected … CT apparatus 20 is illustrated in which the parts 32 are positioned within a container 50 and the container 50 is then mounted on the part support 30. The container 50 includes a plurality of partitions 52 which together form a plurality of compartments 54 with one part 32 being positioned within each compartment. The positioning of the parts 32 within their individual compartments 54 may be either symmetrical or asymmetrical. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 3, each compartment 54 may include its own fixture 56, such as a molded base, to orient the part 32 in a predetermined orientation within its individual compartment 54 …” in Fig. 1 and paragraphs 5 and 42 of Hunt 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 NDT (e.g., comprising details such as “symmetrical or asymmetrical”, in order to avoid “destructive testing” and also achieve “all of the pieces to be inspected”) for the unspecified NDT of Tanaka 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 NDT (e.g., comprising details such as the plurality of turbine blades is disposed on the support so that a notional line drawn from the emitting element to the receiving element through the axis of rotation intersects two or more turbine blades of the plurality of turbine blades for at least a third of the projections) as the unspecified NDT of Tanaka.
In regard to claims 7-9 which are dependent on claim 1, the method of Tanaka lacks an explicit description of details of the “… nondestructively checking …” such as a plurality of configurations is positioned in a pattern on the vertices of a notional regular geometric figure centered on the axis of rotation, the objects in each configuration being grouped directly adjacent to each other and centered on each of the vertices, wherein the configurations are oriented to provide rotational symmetry of the pattern of configurations about the axis of rotation, and wherein the configurations are positioned on some but not all of the vertices of the notional regular geometric figure. However, NDT details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… destructive testing process has the disadvantage of destroying the sample, causing new defects during the cutting process and not allowing a large sample or all of the pieces to be inspected … CT apparatus 20 is illustrated in which the parts 32 are positioned within a container 50 and the container 50 is then mounted on the part support 30. The container 50 includes a plurality of partitions 52 which together form a plurality of compartments 54 with one part 32 being positioned within each compartment. The positioning of the parts 32 within their individual compartments 54 may be either symmetrical or asymmetrical. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 3, each compartment 54 may include its own fixture 56, such as a molded base, to orient the part 32 in a predetermined orientation within its individual compartment 54 …” in Fig. 1 and paragraphs 5 and 42 of Hunt 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 NDT (e.g., comprising details such as “container 50 includes a plurality of partitions 52 which together form a plurality of compartments 54 with one part 32 being positioned within each compartment”, in order to measure a plurality of “8 blades” configurations) for the unspecified NDT of Tanaka 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 NDT (e.g., comprising details such as a plurality of configurations is positioned in a pattern on the vertices of a notional regular geometric figure centered on the axis of rotation, the plurality of turbine blades in each configuration being grouped directly adjacent to each other and centered on each of the vertices, wherein the configurations are oriented to provide rotational symmetry of the pattern of configurations about the axis of rotation, and wherein the configurations are positioned on some but not all of the vertices of the notional regular geometric figure) as the unspecified NDT of Tanaka.
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 1, Tanaka also discloses that the configuration is contained within a jacket, with the volume surrounding the plurality of turbine blades within the jacket being occupied by a filling material or a solid jacket volume (e.g., “… filling material can be a liquid material such as silicone oil or water, a powder material such as a metal or ceramic powder, or a solid material such as a silicone rubber … container, which has a cylindrical body shape …” in the last column 2 paragraph).
In regard to claim 11 which is dependent on claim 10, Tanaka also discloses that the filling material or solid jacket volume has an imaging beam attenuation close to the imaging beam attenuation of the material of the plurality of turbine blades (e.g., “… filling material having an X-ray absorption coefficient close to … that of the ceramic material …” in the last column 1 paragraph).
In regard to claim 12 which is dependent on claim 10, Tanaka also discloses that the filling material is in the form of powder, grains or fluid (e.g., “… filling material can be a liquid material such as silicone oil or water, a powder material such as a metal or ceramic powder, or a solid material such as a silicone rubber …” in the last column 2 paragraph).
In regard to claim 13 which is dependent on claim 12, Tanaka also discloses that the powder is in the form of metal powder of the same material as the plurality of turbine blades (e.g., “… small X-ray absorption coefficients such as … Mg, Al … filling material can be … a powder material such as a metal …” in the second and last column 2 paragraphs or alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that “X-ray absorption coefficients” are “close” when the powder and object comprise the same material).
In regard to claim 14 which is dependent on claim 10, Tanaka also discloses that the solid jacket volume is formed of a metal of the same material as the plurality of turbine blades (e.g., “… small X-ray absorption coefficients such as … Mg, Al … filling material can be … a solid material …” in the second and last column 2 paragraphs or alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that “X-ray absorption coefficients” are “close” when the solid and object comprise the same material).
In regard to claims 15 and 16 which are dependent on claim 10, the method of Tanaka lacks an explicit description of details of the “… nondestructively checking …” such as a border region at least partially surrounding the turbine blades in the jacket with an imaging beam attenuation different from the imaging beam attenuation of the turbine blades, wherein the border region is formed by inserting the turbine blades into a protective film or wall or sleeve. However, NDT details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… destructive testing process has the disadvantage of destroying the sample, causing new defects during the cutting process and not allowing a large sample or all of the pieces to be inspected … parts may be positioned either in a symmetrical or asymmetrical orientation within the shipping container. However, during the CT scan operation, the entire container with its contained parts is simultaneously scanned thus eliminating the previously known necessity of removing the individual parts from their shipping containers. Additionally, the scanning data representing any partitions in the container are disregarded thereby reducing the time necessary to process the data … CT apparatus 20 is illustrated in which the parts 32 are positioned within a container 50 and the container 50 is then mounted on the part support 30. The container 50 includes a plurality of partitions 52 which together form a plurality of compartments 54 with one part 32 being positioned within each compartment. The positioning of the parts 32 within their individual compartments 54 may be either symmetrical or asymmetrical. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 3, each compartment 54 may include its own fixture 56, such as a molded base, to orient the part 32 in a predetermined orientation within its individual compartment 54 …” in paragraphs 5, 16, and 42 of Hunt 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 NDT (e.g., comprising details such as “parts may be positioned either in a symmetrical or asymmetrical orientation within the shipping container”, in order to achieve “eliminating the previously known necessity of removing the individual parts from their shipping containers”) for the unspecified NDT of Tanaka 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 NDT (e.g., comprising details such as a border region surrounding or partially surrounding the plurality of turbine blades in the jacket with an imaging beam attenuation different from the imaging beam attenuation of the plurality of turbine blades, and wherein the border region is formed by inserting the plurality of turbine blades into a protective film or wall or sleeve) as the unspecified NDT of Tanaka.
In regard to claim 17 which is dependent on claim 10, Tanaka also discloses that the jacket has a circular cross-section (e.g., “… container, which has a cylindrical body shape …” in the last column 2 paragraph).
In regard to claim 18 which is dependent on claim 1, Tanaka also discloses that the scanning apparatus is a computational tomography, CT, scanning apparatus, and wherein the imaging beam is an x-ray (e.g., “… X-ray absorption coefficient … CT image …” in the sixth column 1 paragraph).
In regard to claim 19, Tanaka discloses a combination of a scanning apparatus for scanning of a plurality of turbine blades, and the plurality of turbine blades in the scanning apparatus, each turbine blade of the plurality of turbine blades having a leading edge and a trailing edge separated by blade surfaces (e.g., see the “… 8 blades …” in Fig. 4 and the second column 4 paragraph), the scanning apparatus comprising:
(a) a support for the plurality of turbine blades (e.g., “… cylindrical container …” in the third column 4 paragraph); and
(b) an imaging beam emitting element and an imaging beam receiving element oppositely disposed to either side of the support, wherein the support is rotatable relative to the emitting and receiving elements about an axis of rotation to allow creation of an image of the plurality of turbine blades from projections each taken at a different relative angle of rotation, wherein the plurality of turbine blades are positioned on the support in a configuration that reduces the variation in material thickness penetrated at the multiple relative angles of rotation so that when the scanning apparatus is operated at the multiple relative angles of rotation it produces an image of the plurality of plurality of turbine blades (e.g., “… when a ceramic article of a complex shape is placed in a material having an X-ray absorption coefficient equivalent to that of the ceramic, the material fills any recesses in the ceramic article so that the overall object to be tested has a simple, apparent shape. Then, the object will have a uniform contrast, no artifact will be generated, and a CT image clearly displaying any present defects will be obtained … cylindrical body shape … X-ray source and a detector are rotated for scanning about the axis of the container … pair of molds is formed by the silicone rubber so as to fit around the shape of the ceramic article. When testing, the ceramic article can be placed in these molds. In this case, only the complex shaped portion of the ceramic article can be placed in the molds, and the whole ceramic article need not be placed therein. Accordingly, it is important for the test that a combination of the ceramic article and the filling material fitted thereto has a simple shape … 8 blades …” in the sixth column 1 paragraph, the last column 2 paragraph, and the second column 4 paragraph or alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that “a simple shape” such as “cylindrical body shape” has a reduced material thickness variation at multiple relative angles of “CT”).
The combination of Tanaka lacks an explicit description of details of the “… nondestructively checking …” such as an alternate head to toe arrangement with the leading edge of one blade positioned adjacent to the trailing edge of an adjacent blade. However, NDT details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… destructive testing process has the disadvantage of destroying the sample, causing new defects during the cutting process and not allowing a large sample or all of the pieces to be inspected … CT apparatus 20 is illustrated in which the parts 32 are positioned within a container 50 and the container 50 is then mounted on the part support 30. The container 50 includes a plurality of partitions 52 which together form a plurality of compartments 54 with one part 32 being positioned within each compartment. The positioning of the parts 32 within their individual compartments 54 may be either symmetrical or asymmetrical. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 3, each compartment 54 may include its own fixture 56, such as a molded base, to orient the part 32 in a predetermined orientation within its individual compartment 54 …” in paragraphs 5 and 42 of Hunt 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 NDT (e.g., comprising details such as “symmetrical or asymmetrical”, in order to avoid “destructive testing” and also achieve “all of the pieces to be inspected”) for the unspecified NDT of Tanaka 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 NDT (e.g., comprising details such as the plurality of turbine blades are positioned in an alternate head to toe arrangement with the leading edge of one turbine blade of the plurality of turbine blades positioned adjacent to the trailing edge of an adjacent turbine blade of the plurality of turbine blades) as the unspecified NDT of Tanaka.
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 31 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest that the plurality of turbine blades are positioned in an alternate head to toe arrangement with the leading edge of one turbine blade of the plurality of turbine blades positioned adjacent to the trailing edge of an adjacent turbine blade of the plurality of turbine blades as recited in amended independent claims 1 and 19 because Hunt et al. fail to disclose turbine blades. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the combination of cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest that the plurality of turbine blades are positioned in an alternate head to toe arrangement with the leading edge of one turbine blade of the plurality of turbine blades positioned adjacent to the trailing edge of an adjacent turbine blade of the plurality of turbine blades as recited in amended independent claims 1 and 19 because it is improper to simply dismiss the alternate head to toe arrangement for a plurality of turbine blades as being predictable. Examiner respectfully disagrees. There “was no showing of criticality” (MPEP 2144.05) in the specification as filed because turbine blades may be positioned in: (a) an alternate head-to-toe arrangement (e.g., see “… blades may be positioned in an alternate head-to-toe arrangement with the leading edge of one blade positioned adjacent to the trailing edge of the adjacent blade …” in specification paragraph 13); (b) an convex surfaces facing each other arrangement (e.g., see “… blades may be disposed with a configuration centred on the axis of rotation with their convex surfaces facing each other …” in specification paragraph 14); and (c) an convex surfaces facing in the same direction arrangement (e.g., see “… blades may all face the same way (so that all the convex surfaces face in the same direction) or alternate …” in specification paragraph 15). Further Hunt et al. teach that similar parts may be “symmetrical or asymmetrical” positioned as desired so as to achieve CT inspection (e.g., see “… destructive testing process has the disadvantage of destroying the sample, causing new defects during the cutting process and not allowing a large sample or all of the pieces to be inspected … CT apparatus 20 is illustrated in which the parts 32 are positioned within a container 50 and the container 50 is then mounted on the part support 30. The container 50 includes a plurality of partitions 52 which together form a plurality of compartments 54 with one part 32 being positioned within each compartment. The positioning of the parts 32 within their individual compartments 54 may be either symmetrical or asymmetrical. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 3, each compartment 54 may include its own fixture 56, such as a molded base, to orient the part 32 in a predetermined orientation within its individual compartment 54 …”). Therefore, the combination of the cited prior art teaches or suggest all limitations as arranged in the claims.
Applicant argues that the combination of cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest that the plurality of turbine blades are positioned in an alternate head to toe arrangement with the leading edge of one turbine blade of the plurality of turbine blades positioned adjacent to the trailing edge of an adjacent turbine blade of the plurality of turbine blades as recited in amended independent claims 1 and 19 because paragraphs 5 and 42 of Hunt et al. fail to reasonably suggest the alternate head to toe arrangement for a plurality of turbine blades. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, there “was no showing of criticality” (MPEP 2144.05) in the specification as filed because turbine blades may be positioned in: (a) an alternate head-to-toe arrangement (e.g., see “… blades may be positioned in an alternate head-to-toe arrangement with the leading edge of one blade positioned adjacent to the trailing edge of the adjacent blade …” in specification paragraph 13); (b) an convex surfaces facing each other arrangement (e.g., see “… blades may be disposed with a configuration centred on the axis of rotation with their convex surfaces facing each other …” in specification paragraph 14); and (c) an convex surfaces facing in the same direction arrangement (e.g., see “… blades may all face the same way (so that all the convex surfaces face in the same direction) or alternate …” in specification paragraph 15). Further Hunt et al. teach that similar parts may be “symmetrical or asymmetrical” positioned as desired so as to achieve CT inspection (e.g., see “… destructive testing process has the disadvantage of destroying the sample, causing new defects during the cutting process and not allowing a large sample or all of the pieces to be inspected … CT apparatus 20 is illustrated in which the parts 32 are positioned within a container 50 and the container 50 is then mounted on the part support 30. The container 50 includes a plurality of partitions 52 which together form a plurality of compartments 54 with one part 32 being positioned within each compartment. The positioning of the parts 32 within their individual compartments 54 may be either symmetrical or asymmetrical. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 3, each compartment 54 may include its own fixture 56, such as a molded base, to orient the part 32 in a predetermined orientation within its individual compartment 54 …”). Therefore, the combination of the cited prior art teaches or suggest all limitations as arranged in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4,803,639 teaches a CT.
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 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