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 .
Election/Restrictions
The examiner previously required restrictions between Group I, Group II, and Group III. Applicant subsequently elected Group II for examination. Upon further consideration, Group I and Group III are rejoined and examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a mask assembly comprising at least one mask structure with a mask pattern comprising one of relatively highly absorbing features in a relatively low-absorbing substrate and relatively low-absorbing features in a relatively highly absorbing substrate as claimed in claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9-14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: METHOD AND SYSTEM COMPRISING A MASK STRUCTURE AND A DISPLACEMENT CONTROLLER TO CONTROL A DISPLACEMENT OF THE MASK STRUCTURE FOR HIGH PHOTON ENERGIES IMAGING.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 11, line 26, --ROI-- should be inserted after “a region of interest”.
Page 11, line 27, --ROI-- should be inserted after “the region of interest”.
Page 11 line 30, --ROI-- should be inserted after “the region of interest”.
Page 12, line 7, --12-- should be inserted after “the measurement device”.
Page 12, line 22, --ROI-- should be inserted after “the region of interest”.
Page 12, line 23, --ROI-- should be inserted after “the region of interest”.
Page 12, line 27, --ROI-- should be inserted after “the region of interest”.
Page 13, line 33, --22-- should be inserted after “the mask assembly”.
Page 14, line 16, --12-- should be inserted after “the measurement device”.
Page 14, lines 16-17, --26-- should be inserted after “the detection system”.
Page 14, line 18, --12-- should be inserted after “the measurement device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Please note that paragraph numbers in a U. S. Patent Application Publication do not correspond to page numbers and line numbers in the originally-filed specification. The page numbers and line numbers mentioned above refer to the originally-filed specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-14, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) A mask assembly for use in inspecting a region of interest by creating structured high photon energy radiation to interact with the region of interest, the mask assembly comprising:
at least one mask structure, the at least one mask structure having a predetermined effective thickness t, and comprising a mask pattern formed by an arrangement of spaced-apart features of absorption properties with respect to [[said]] the structured high photon energy radiation different from spaces between [[said]] the arrangement of spaced-apart features of absorption properties, [[said]] the arrangement of [[said]] spaced-apart features of absorption properties along a lateral dimension of the mask pattern defining a predetermined effective pattern size P,
wherein the arrangement of spaced-apart features of absorption properties has [[have]] a characteristic lateral size l providing a substantially high aspect ratio t/l.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The mask assembly according to claim 1, wherein the at least one mask structure is characterized by at least one of the following:
the at least one mask structure has a spatial modulation of thickness along the mask pattern within [[said]] the predetermined effective thickness t;
the at least one mask structure is a disk, [[said]] the arrangement of spaced-apart features of absorption properties of the mask pattern being arranged along a substantially circular path;
the mask pattern has one of the following configurations:
the mask pattern is formed by relatively highly absorbing features arranged in [[the]] a spaced-apart relationship (a lack of an antecedent basis) in a relatively low-absorbing substrate with respect to [[said]] the structured high photon energy radiation; or
the mask pattern is formed by relatively low-absorbing features arranged in [[the]] a spaced-apart relationship (a lack of an antecedent basis) in a relatively highly absorbing substrate with respect to [[said]] the structured high photon energy radiation;
the substantially high aspect ratio t/l is at least 10; and
an arrangement of [[the]] spaced-apart features of absorption properties of the mask pattern has one of the following configurations:
a random arrangement; and
an arrangement providing a desired sparsity in a predetermined base selected in accordance with [[base]] a base of sparsity in the region of interest being inspected; and
an arrangement selected in accordance with a function corresponding to a discrete cosine transform.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The mask assembly according to claim 1, further comprising:
a drive mechanism configured and controllably operable to implement successive lateral movements of said mask pattern with a predetermined lateral jump j to thereby enable successive inspection realizations through different segments of the mask pattern, respectively,
wherein a value of [[said]] the predetermined lateral jump j [Symbol font/0xB9] N x P, N being an integer.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
7. (Proposed Amendments) The mask assembly according to claim 1, wherein the mask pattern has one of the following configurations:
the mask pattern is formed by relatively highly absorbing features arranged in [[the]] a spaced-apart relationship (a lack of an antecedent basis) in a relatively low-absorbing substrate with respect to [[said]] the structured high photon energy radiation; or
the mask pattern is formed by relatively low-absorbing features arranged in [[the]] a spaced-apart relationship (a lack of an antecedent basis) in a relatively highly absorbing substrate with respect to [[said]] the structured high photon energy radiation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
9. (Proposed Amendments) The mask assembly according to claim 7, wherein the mask pattern comprises a relatively high absorbing material, and the relatively high absorbing material comprises a composition of a metal material .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
10. (Proposed Amendments) The mask assembly according to claim 9, wherein [[said]] the composition of the metal material gold, and tantalum.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
11. (Proposed Amendments) The mask assembly according to claim 1, wherein the mask pattern is formed by relatively highly absorbing features arranged in [[the]] a spaced-apart relationship (a lack of an antecedent basis) in a relatively low-absorbing substrate with respect to [[said]] the structured high photon energy radiation, [[said]] the mask pattern being produced by metal printing of [[said]] the arrangement of spaced-apart features of absorption properties (a previously recited limitation in claim 1), followed by laser milling.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
12. (Proposed Amendments) The mask assembly according to claim 11, wherein metal printing comprises printing a metal material, the metal material comprises at least one of the following: tungsten, platinum, silver, [[gold]] gold, and tantalum.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
13. (Proposed Amendments) The mask assembly according to claim 8, wherein the mask pattern is formed by relatively low-absorbing features arranged in [[the]] a spaced-apart relationship (a lack of an antecedent basis) in a relatively highly absorbing substrate with respect to [[said]] the structured high photon energy radiation, [[said]] the mask pattern being in [[the]] a form of a distribution of pores in the relatively highly absorbing substrate.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
14. (Proposed Amendments) The mask assembly according to claim 13, wherein [[said]] the relatively highly absorbing substrate comprises one of the following: limestone, mortar, AlCu, and MgZn.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
18. (Proposed Amendments) An inspection system for inspecting a region of interest, the inspection system comprising:
a measurement device comprising the mask assembly according to claim 1 and (a positive limitation of the mask assembly according to claim 1) configured and operable to perform a plurality of successive measurements of the region of interest by implementing a corresponding plurality of interactions of the region of interest with high photon energy radiation beams having predetermined different spatially encoded intensity profiles, and
a detection system comprising at least one radiation detector device successively collecting radiation responses of the region of interest to [[said]] the corresponding plurality of interactions of the region of interest with the high photon energy radiation beams and generating measured data indicative thereof,
wherein [[said]] the high photon energy radiation beams having predetermined different spatially encoded intensity profiles are sequentially produced by passing an initial high photon energy radiation beam through the masking assembly .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
19. (Proposed Amendments) The inspection system according to claim 18, characterized by at least one of the following:
[[said]] the at least one radiation detector device is configured and operable to collect the radiation responses (a previously recited limitation in claim 18) of the region of interest comprising Compton scattering of the region of interest; and
the inspection system further comprises a control system configured and operable to process [[said]] the measured data, thereby enabling a reconstruction of an image of the region of interest from [[said]] the measured data by applying thereto at least one of compressed sensing based correlation processing and/or machine learning based processing, and generate data indicative of a reconstructed image of the region of interest.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
20. (Previously Presented) The inspection system according to claim 18, wherein [[said]] the at least one radiation detector device is configured and operable to collect the radiation responses (a previously recited limitation in claim 18) of the region of interest comprising Compton scattering of the region of interest, [[said]] the at least one radiation detector device being accommodated for collecting at least one of back propagating radiation and forward propagating radiation of [[said]] the Compton scattering of the region of interest.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 34, and 36-39 objected to because of the following informalities:
22. (Proposed Amendments) An inspection system for inspecting a region of interest, the inspection system comprising:
a measurement device configured and operable to perform a plurality of successive measurements of the region of interest by implementing a corresponding plurality of interactions of the region of interest with high photon energy radiation beams of X- or gamma-radiation having predetermined different spatially encoded intensity profiles, and
a detection system comprising at least one radiation detector device configured and operable to successively collect radiation responses of the region of interest to [[said]] the corresponding plurality of interactions of the region of interest with the high photon energy radiation beams of X- or gamma-radiation and generate measured data indicative thereof,
wherein [[said]] the at least one radiation detector device is configured and operable to collect the radiation responses of the region of interest comprising Compton scattering of the region of interest including at least one of back propagating radiation and forward propagating radiation of [[said]] the Compton scattering of the region of interest, thereby enabling a reconstruction of [[image]] an image of the region of interest from [[said]] the measured data by applying thereto at least one of compressed sensing based correlation processing and machine learning based processing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
23. (Proposed Amendments) The inspection system according to claim 22, further comprising one of the following:
the measured data to a control system configured to perform [[said]] the at least one of the compressed sensing based correlation processing and the machine learning based processing of the measure data and generate [[the]] a reconstructed image (a lack of an antecedent basis) of the region of interest; or
the at least one of the compressed sensing based correlation processing and the machine learning based processing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 25, 26, 28, 31, 34, and 36-39 are objected to because of the following informalities:
25. (Proposed Amendments) The inspection system according to claim 22, wherein the measurement device comprises:
a) a source of the high photon energy radiation beams of X- or gamma-radiation (a previously recited limitation in claim 22) configured to provide an input beam of [[said] the high photon energy radiation beams of X- or gamma-radiation; and
b) a mask assembly accommodated in a general propagation path of [[said]] the input beam, the mask assembly comprising at least one mask structure being configured and controllably operated to sequentially induce different intensity fluctuations on the input beam, thereby sequentially producing the high photon energy radiation beams of the X- or gamma-radiation having the predetermined different spatially encoded intensity profiles (a previously recited limitation in claim 22), the at least one mask structure having a predetermined effective thickness t, and comprising a mask pattern formed by an arrangement of spaced-apart features of absorption properties with respect to [[said]] the high photon energy radiation beams different from spaces between them, [[said]] the arrangement of [[said]] spaced-apart features of absorption properties along a lateral dimension of the mask pattern defining a predetermined effective pattern size P,
wherein the arrangement of spaced-apart features of absorption properties [[have]] has a characteristic lateral size l providing a substantially high aspect ratio t/l.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
26. (Proposed Amendments) The inspection system according to claim 25, characterized by at least one of the following:
[[said]] the at least one mask structure has a spatial modulation of thickness along the mask pattern within [[said]] the predetermined effective thickness t (a previously recited limitation in claim 25);
[[said]] the at least one mask structure is a disk, [[said]] the arrangement of spaced-apart features of absorption properties (a previously recited limitation in claim 25) of the mask pattern being arranged along a substantially circular path;
the inspection system further comprises a drive mechanism configured and controllably operable to implement successive lateral displacements between the general propagation path of the input [[beam]] beam, and [[said]] the mask pattern with a predetermined lateral jump j to thereby enable successive inspection realizations through different segments of the mask pattern, respectively, wherein a value of [[said]] the predetermined lateral jump j [Symbol font/0xB9] N x P, N being an integer;
[[said]] the substantially high aspect ratio t/l is at least 10 (a previously recited limitation in claim 25);
the mask pattern has one of the following configurations:
the mask pattern is formed by relatively highly absorbing features arranged in [[the]] a spaced-apart relationship (a lack of an antecedent basis) in a relatively low-absorbing substrate with respect to [[said]] the high photon energy radiation beams (a previously recited limitation in claim 22); or
the mask pattern is formed by relatively low-absorbing features arranged in [[the]] a spaced-apart relationship in a relatively highly absorbing substrate with respect to [[said]] the high photon energy radiation beams;
the mask pattern comprises at least one of [[3D]] a 3D printed structure and porous materials; and
[[an]] the arrangement of [[the]] spaced-apart features of absorption properties (a previously recited limitation in claim 25) of the mask pattern has one of the following configurations:
a random arrangement; and
an arrangement providing a desired sparsity in a predetermined base selected in accordance with [[base]] a base of sparsity in the region of interest being inspected; and
an arrangement selected in accordance with a function corresponding to a discrete cosine transform.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
28. (Proposed Amendments) The inspection system according to claim 25, further comprising:
a drive mechanism configured and controllably operable to implement successive lateral displacements between the general propagation path of the input [[beam]] beam, and [[said]] the mask pattern with a predetermined lateral jump j to thereby enable successive inspection realizations through different segments of the mask pattern, respectively,
wherein a value of [[said]] the predetermined lateral jump j [Symbol font/0xB9] N x P, N being an integer, [[said]] the predetermined lateral jump j being smaller than P.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 31 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
31. (Proposed Amendments) The inspection system according to claim 25, wherein
the mask pattern has one of the following configurations:
the mask pattern is formed by relatively highly absorbing features arranged in [[the]] a spaced-apart relationship (a lack of an antecedent basis) in a relatively low-absorbing substrate with respect to [[said]] the high photon energy radiation beams; or
the mask pattern is formed by relatively low-absorbing features arranged in [[the]] a spaced-apart relationship in a relatively highly absorbing substrate with respect to [[said]] the high photon energy radiation beams;
the mask pattern comprises a relatively highly absorbing material, and the relatively highly absorbing material comprises a composition of a metal material and
the mask pattern comprises at least one of [[3D]] a 3D printed structure and porous materials.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities:
34. (Proposed Amendments) The inspection system according to claim 31, wherein [[said]] the composition of the metal material tungsten, platinum, silver, gold, and tantalum.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 36 and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
36. (Proposed Amendments) The inspection system according to claim 25, wherein the mask pattern is formed by relatively highly absorbing features arranged in [[the]] a spaced-apart relationship in a relatively low-absorbing substrate with respect to [[said]] the high photon energy radiation beams, [[said]] the mask pattern being produced by metal printing of [[said]] the arrangement of spaced-apart features of absorption properties (a previously recited limitation in claim 25), followed by laser milling.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities:
37. (Proposed Amendments) The inspection system according to claim 36, wherein metal printing comprises printing a metal material, the metal material comprises at least one of the following: tungsten, platinum, silver, [[gold]] gold, and tantalum.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 38 and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities:
38. (Proposed Amendments) The inspection system according to claim 25, wherein the mask pattern is formed by relatively low-absorbing features arranged in [[the]] a spaced-apart relationship in a relatively highly absorbing substrate with respect to [[said]] the high photon energy radiation beams, [[said]] the mask pattern being in [[the]] a form of a distribution of pores in the relatively highly absorbing substrate.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities:
39. (Proposed Amendments) The inspection system according to claim 38, wherein [[said]] the relatively highly absorbing substrate comprises one of the following: limestone, mortar, AlCu, and MgZn.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 43 and 44 are objected to because of the following informalities:
43. (Proposed Amendments) A method for inspecting a region of interest by X-ray or gamma-ray radiation comprising:
i) producing an input beam of X-ray or gamma-ray radiation directed along a general propagation path towards the region of interest;
ii) scanning, by the input beam on its way towards the region of inters, a mask pattern, thereby sequentially inducing different intensity fluctuations in the input beam and producing a sequence of beams of the X-ray or gamma-ray radiation having predetermined different spatially encoded intensity profiles propagating towards the region of interest to successively interact with the region of interest and inducing radiation a corresponding sequence of radiation responses of the region of interest comprising Compton scattering of the region of interest, [[said]] the scanning being implemented by successive lateral displacements between the general propagation path of the input beam and [[said]] the mask pattern with a predetermined lateral jump j of a value satisfying a condition j [Symbol font/0xB9] NxP, where N is an integer and P is a predetermined effective pattern size [[P]] of the mask pattern; and
iii) detecting [[said]] the corresponding sequence of the radiation responses of the region of interest comprising at least one of back propagating radiation and forward propagating radiation of [[said]] the Compton scattering of the region of interest, and generating measured data indicative thereof, thereby enabling a reconstruction of [[image]] an image of the region of interest from [[said]] the measured data by applying thereto at least one of [[the]] compressed sensing based correlation processing and [[the]] machine learning based processing (a lack of an antecedent basis).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 44 is objected to because of the following informalities:
44. (Proposed Amendments) The method according to claim 43, characterized by at least one of the following:
[[said]] the mask pattern comprises a mask structure having a predetermined effective thickness t, the mask pattern being formed by an arrangement of spaced-apart features of different absorption properties with respect to [[said]] the X-ray or gamma-ray radiation as compared with spaces between them, [[said]] the arrangement of [[said]] spaced-apart features of different absorption properties along a lateral dimension of the mask pattern defining said predetermined effective pattern size P, wherein the arrangement of spaced-apart features of different absorption properties [[have]] has a characteristic lateral size l providing a substantially high aspect ratio
t
l
;
[[said]] the mask pattern comprises a mask structure having a spatial modulation of thickness along the mask pattern within [[said]] the predetermined effective thickness t;
the mask pattern comprises an arrangement of features of one of the following configurations:
an arrangement providing a desired sparsity in a predetermined base selected in accordance with [[base]] a base of sparsity in the region of interest being inspected;
a random arrangement of spaced-apart features; and
an arrangement configured in accordance with function corresponding to a discrete cosine transform.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 a corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 a 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder (e.g., device, system, a utility, etc.) 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. Such claim limitations are: a measurement device, a detection system, at least one radiation detector device, a control system, a communication utility in claims 18-20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 34, and 36-39.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover a corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13, 14, 18-20, 25, 26, 28, 31, 34, 36-39, 43, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 13 and 14 depend on a canceled claim, which renders the claims indefinite.
Claim 18 recites a functional limitation “the high photon energy radiation beams having predetermined different spatially encoded intensity profiles are sequentially produced by passing an initial high photon energy radiation beam through the masking assembly of claim 1” in lines 7-10, which renders the claim indefinite.
During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. It is a best practice to make the record clear during prosecution by explaining the BRI of claim terms, as necessary, including explaining the BRI of any functional language. When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked, the BRI of the “means-plus-function” limitation is restricted to a corresponding structure in the supporting disclosure, and its equivalents (a corresponding specification that identifies and links a structure, material, or act to the function recited in the claim is considered to be part of the claim limitation). When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked and an element is recited along with a function, that element is construed as being capable of performing the function – in other words, the BRI of that element is limited by the function.
It should be kept in mind, however, that there is a distinction between reciting a function compared to reciting an intended use or result. A functional limitation can provide a patentable distinction (limit the claim scope) by imposing limits on the function of a structure, material, or action. Typically, no patentable distinction (no limit on the claim scope) is made by an intended use or result unless some structural difference is imposed by the use or result on the structure or material recited in the claim, or some manipulative difference is imposed by the use or result on the action recited in the claim.
While functional limitations may be properly used in claims, the boundaries imposed by a functional limitation must be clearly defined to be definite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim language that merely states a result to be obtained without providing boundaries on the claim scope (e.g., by not specifying any way to achieve those results) is unclear. Consider the following to determine whether a claim limitation expressed in functional language has clear boundaries: whether one of ordinary skill in the art can determine what structure, material, or act in the claim performs this function; whether the limitation has well defined boundaries or only expresses a problem solved or intended result; and what an anticipatory reference would need to disclose in order to satisfy this claim limitation. These considerations are not all-inclusive or limiting.
When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked, the specification must adequately disclose a corresponding structure, material, or act that performs the function. For “means”-type claims, an adequate disclosure requires that a corresponding structure or material is: (a) disclosed in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand what specific structure or material the inventor has identified to perform the recited function; (b) sufficient to perform the entire function recited in the claim limitation; and (c) clearly linked to the function in the written description.
When the examiner determines that the boundaries of a claim are not reasonably clear, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. Such a rejection puts the applicant on notice that it must fulfill its statutory duty under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to ensure that claim language clearly defines the boundaries of the claim scope sought. In making a rejection, the examiner must identify the specific claim language that is indefinite, and explain why that language renders the boundaries of the claim unclear. When possible, the examiner should suggest how the indefiniteness issues may be resolved.
The boundaries of the functional language are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a measurement device and a detection system, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the inspection system in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
The limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (“the high photon energy radiation beams having predetermined different spatially encoded intensity profiles are sequentially produced by passing an initial high photon energy radiation beam through the masking assembly of claim 1”) without providing any indication about how the function is performed. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a measurement device and a detection system, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the inspection system in a certain manner.
Claim 25 recites a limitation “a mask pattern formed by an arrangement of spaced-apart features of absorption properties with respect to said high photon energy radiation different from spaces between them” in lines 10-11, which renders the claim indefinite. The meaning of the limitation is unclear.
Claim 31 recites a limitation “the relatively highly absorbing material” in line 7, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 43 recites a limitation “radiation a corresponding sequence of radiation responses” in lines 9, which renders the claim indefinite. The meaning of the limitation is unclear.
Claim 44 recites a limitation “them” in line 6, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear to which structures does the limitation refer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shwartz et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,474,283 B2) disclosed a system and a method for mapping chemical elements in a sample.
Marsden et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,125,605 B2) disclosed a rotating hoop chopper wheel.
Cuadros et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,987,071 B2) disclosed a pixelated K-edge coded-aperture system for X-ray compressive spectral imaging.
Boardman et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,795,036 B2) disclosed gamma-ray imaging.
Rothschild (U. S. Patent No. 10,770,195 B2) disclosed an X-ray chopper wheel assembly.
Brady et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,107,768 B2) disclosed a volumetric-molecular-imaging system and a method therefor.
Safai et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,739,727 B2) disclosed systems and methods for aligning an aperture.
Vogler (U. S. Patent No. 9,557,284 B2) disclosed an imaging device comprising a scanning illuminating device and a method of an implementation.
Grodzins (U. S. Patent No. 9,020,103 B2) disclosed a versatile beam scanner with a fan beam.
Oyaizu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,693,627 B2) disclosed an X-ray inspection apparatus comprising an X-ray detector with an intensifying screen.
Kotowski et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,826,589 B2) disclosed a security system for screening people.
Mastronardi et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,796,734 B2) disclosed a collection of multiple images and a synthesis for screening personnel.
Baumann et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,639,786 B2) disclosed an X-ray apparatus comprising a focus-detector arrangement with an X-ray optical transmission grating for generating projective or tomographic phase-contrast recordings of a subject.
Shefsky (U. S. Patent No. 7,623,614 B2) disclosed an apparatus for inspecting objects with a coded beam.
Lanza et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,737,652 B2) disclosed imaging with a coded aperture.
Annis et al. (U. S. Patent No. 4,799,247 A) disclosed X-ray imaging for low-Z materials.
Macovski (U. S. Patent No. 4,686,695 A) disclosed an X-ray scanned selective imaging system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allen C. Ho, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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.
Allen C. Ho, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Allen C. Ho/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Allen.Ho@uspto.gov