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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foland et al. (U.S. Patent 7,831,012) in view of Krug et al. (U.S. Patent 6,088,423).
PNG
media_image1.png
628
1034
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 1, Foland et al. teach a ray scanning apparatus ((100) see Fig. 1, not shown above), comprising:
a conveying device (conveyor/ conveyor belt (120) – see Fig. 1, not shown above) for conveying an object ((130) see Fig. 1, not shown above) under inspection to pass through a scanning area of the ray scanning apparatus; and
a plurality of scanning beam planes (see for example, cross sections A-A, B-B and C-C shown above), respectively disposed on a plurality of scanning planes arranging in a conveying direction of the object under inspection,
each scanning beam plane comprising a ray source module (1002-1008) and a detector assembly (1110, 1112) which are arranged opposite each other, and
the ray source module comprising a plurality of ray source points for emitting ray beams (see for example, claim 19).
Foland et al. do not explicitly teach: “wherein the ray source modules of the plurality of scanning beam planes are arranged on a lower side, a left side, and a right side of the scanning area respectively and are mounted or detached independently from each other.”
PNG
media_image2.png
682
1076
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
346
328
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Krug et al. teach a ray scanning apparatus wherein the ray source modules (A, B, C) of a plurality of scanning beam planes are arranged on a lower side (A, B) and a left side (C), and are mounted or detached independently from each other. [Examiner note: it is understood that a “side” in the Fig. above is not limited to “right” or “left” but may also include both sides].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Foland et al. such that the ray source modules of the plurality of scanning beam planes are arranged on a lower side, a left side, and a right side of the scanning area respectively and are mounted or detached independently from each other as taught by Krug et al. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for the purposes of increasing angular sampling; reducing occlusion/ shadowing of images and improving reconstruction quality as is a known benefit of multi-view based inspection systems as taught by Krug et al.
As per claim 2, Foland et al. as modified above, disclose a ray scanning apparatus wherein when observed in the conveying direction of the object under inspection, the ray source modules of the plurality of scanning beam planes are arranged as a semi-enclosed structure surrounding the scanning area and opening on an upper side (see for example, Figs. shown above).
As per claim 3, Foland et al. as modified above, disclose a ray scanning apparatus, wherein the ray source modules are formed in a straight line, broken line or arc shape (see for example, Figs. shown above). Examiner note: absent the showing of criticality, formation of known multi-source arrays are an obvious design choice].
As per claim 4, Foland et al. as modified above, disclose a ray scanning apparatus, wherein in each scanning beam plane, the detector assembly is arranged to surround the scanning area in at least two sides (see for example, Figs. shown above).
As per claims 5-6, Foland et al. as modified above, disclose a ray scanning apparatus, wherein in the scanning beam plane where the ray source module is arranged on the lower side of the scanning area, the detector assembly is formed in a U-shaped structure surrounding the scanning area and opening on a lower side (see for example, Figs. shown above).
As per claims 7-8, Foland et al. as modified above, disclose a ray scanning apparatus, wherein the luggage conveying system comprises a conveying belt, and a speed and height of the conveying device match those of the conveying belt of the luggage conveying system (see for example, Figs. shown above).
As per claims 9-11, Foland et al. as modified above, disclose a ray scanning apparatus, further comprising a control device (see for example, Foland et al. Fig. 15 (1506) and associated passage – not shown above), wherein the control device is configured to control a beam emitting sequence of the ray source modules in respective scanning beam planes, so that the ray source modules in the respective scanning beam planes simultaneously emit ray beams from one ray source point.
As per claims 12-13, Foland et al. as modified above, disclose a ray scanning apparatus, wherein the luggage conveying system (Foland et al. Fig. 1 - (120)) comprises a conveying belt for conveying luggage, wherein the conveying device of the ray scanning apparatus matches the conveying belt in height and speed.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foland et al. (U.S. Patent 7831012) in view of Krug et al. (U.S. Patent 6,088,423) and Morgan (U.S. Patent 6,125,167).
As per claim 16, Foland et al. as modified above, disclose a ray scanning apparatus as recited in claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose: an apparatus wherein the ray source module of each scanning beam plane comprises a separate vacuum cavity for accommodating a respective ray generation device, and the plurality of ray source points of the ray source module of each scanning beam plane share the separate vacuum cavity.
PNG
media_image4.png
652
780
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Morgan teaches a body (14) defining a vacuum envelope (16) and comprising a plurality of cathode assemblies (22) mounted within the vacuum envelope; configured to produce plural beam slices (46a, b… n) (Abstract – not shown above; Fig. 1 shown above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Foland et al. wherein the ray source module of each scanning beam plane comprises a separate vacuum cavity for accommodating a respective ray generation device, and the plurality of ray source points of the ray source module of each scanning beam plane share the separate vacuum cavity. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for the purpose(s) of reducing a number of separate X-ray sources while preserving an ability to generate multiple ray source points as suggested by Morgan (see for example Fig. shown above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As per claim 14, the Examiner found no reference in the prior art that disclosed or rendered obvious a mounting-positioning structure, wherein the ray scanning apparatus comprises the ray source module and a stationary support frame, the mounting-positioning structure comprises a main body, and the main body can be fixedly connected to the ray source module and the support frame, so that the ray source module can be fixedly mounted to the support frame through the main body, the mounting-positioning structure further comprises: a moving device, wherein the ray source module can be moved to a predetermined mounting position on a first plane through the moving device; a first positioning device for positioning the ray source module on the first plane; a lifting device for adjusting a position of the ray source module in a first direction, wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the first plane; and a second positioning device for fixing the position of the ray source module in the first direction.
As per claim 15, the Examiner found no reference in the prior art that disclosed or rendered obvious a mounting fixing structure, wherein the ray scanning apparatus comprises the detector assembly and a stationary support frame, the detector assembly comprises at least two detector sets, each detector set is fixedly mounted to the support frame or detached from the support frame via the mounting-fixing structure, and the mounting-fixing structure comprises: a first mounting portion fixedly disposed on the detector set; a second mounting portion fixedly disposed on the support frame and capable of being in linear moving fit with the first mounting portion, wherein the detector set can be moved along the second mounting portion to a predetermined mounting position when the first mounting portion and the second mounting portion engage with each other; and a fixing device disposed on a side of the detector set in a width direction to fix the detector set relative to a mounting reference plane on the support frame.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY D THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2496. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David 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.
/COURTNEY D THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884