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 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear if the limitation is referring to a component that has already been claimed or a new component. Please use clarifying language. Claim 7 is rejected by virtue of its dependence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0321033 (Stearns) and US 2015/0212229 (Walcher).
Regarding claim 1, Stearns disclose a machine for the composite scanning of objects, comprising a booth (40) equipped with an opening on a front wall that can be closed by a door (Fig. 2, required insert and remove object to me imaged by the system), on one of the two internal side walls of said booth there is at least one X-ray source (180) which projects at least one beam of radiation in the direction of the opposite wall where a receiving device of said beams is arranged (182), on the base of the booth there being a support plane for the objects to be scanned (172), characterized in that on the same wall where the X-ray emission source is located there is a surface scanning tool of the objects placed on the support plane (144).
Stearns fails to teach the details of the booth equipped with an opening on a front wall that can be closed by a door.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide imaging chamber 162 with a door on a front wall of the chamber in order to allow the object to be imaged to be placed within the chamber. One would have been motivated to place the door on the front wall to allow access to the support plane without interfering with imaging components.
Stearns is silent with respect to the materials used to make the booth, thereby allowing for that which is known in the art.
Walcher disclose an X-ray scanning device comprising a lead-shielded housing [0023].
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the invention was filed to select lead as the material used to make the booth. One would have been motivated to select lead based on its radiation shielding properties.
Stearns fails to teach that the surface scanning tool is located on the same wall as the X-ray emission source.
However, it has been held that rearrangement of parts is held to be an obvious matter of design choice when shifting the position of components would not have modified the operation of the device (see MPEP 2144.04). Therefore, since attaching the surface scanning tool to the same wall where the X-ray emission source is located would not modify the operation of the device, the rearrangement of attachment location is a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 2, Stearns in view of Walcher disclose the machine according to claim 1, wherein said tool is a laser scanning device or a structured light scanner ([0045], camera).
Regarding claim 3, Stearns in view of Walcher disclose the machine according to claim 1, but is silent with respect to movement of the x-ray source. However, translating and rotating an x-ray source is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Steans in view of Walcher wherein said X-ray source is provided with a movement device capable of lifting the source along a first vertical axis (Y1) and of making the source itself and therefore also the emitted beam rotate, around a first horizontal axis (XI), substantially parallel to the wall (22). One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide fine tuning of imaging elements with respect to a region of interest within an object worked upon by the system.
Regarding claim 4, Stearns in view of Walcher disclose the machine according to claim 1, but is silent with respect to movement of the x-ray source. However, translating and rotating an x-ray source is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Steans in view of Walcher wherein the receiving device (32) comprises a movement device which allows the receiving area (33) to move vertically along a second axis (Y2) and to move horizontally along a second axis (X2) substantially parallel to the wall (22). One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide fine tuning of imaging elements with respect to a region of interest within an object worked upon by the system.
Regarding claim 5, Stearns in view of Walcher disclose the machine according to claim 1, wherein the support plane comprises a rotary table capable of rotating around a third vertical axis [0047], but is silent with respect to movement of the x-ray source. However, translating and rotating an x-ray source is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Steans in view of Walcher with a translator capable of moving the table along a third horizontal axis and a fourth horizontal axis orthogonal to the third. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide fine tuning of imaging elements with respect to a region of interest within an object worked upon by the system.
Regarding claim 8, Stearns in view of Walcher disclose the machine according to claim 1, comprising an electronic processing unit that receives the X-ray scanned images from the receiving device and the image of the object surface from the scanning tool defining the contours of the object, such unit by combining the two pieces of information performs are construction of the object (Fig. 7 and 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANI FOX whose telephone number is (571)272-3513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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 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.
/DANI FOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884