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.
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) 1-3 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160135278) in view of Ho et a. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20110006708).
[Examiner note: The following rejection coincides, at least in part, with the ISR dated: 10/10/22].
As per claim 1, Sun et al. disclose a radiation inspection system, comprising:
a single ray source having a plurality of accelerating tubes (13, 18), wherein the plurality of accelerating tubes respectively generate a plurality of rays, and
beam exit directions of the plurality of accelerating tubes comprise at least two different beam exit directions (para. [0183]);
a plurality of detectors (102, 122) configured to detect a signal when rays emitted by the single ray source act on the inspected object (104); and
a processor in communication connection with the single ray source and configured to respectively control the plurality of accelerating tubes (paras. [0056; 0076; 0181].
Sun et al. do not explicitly disclose a system wherein the plurality of tubes generate a plurality of rays having different energies.
Ho et al. disclose an inspection system configured to generate rays having at least two distinct energy ranges (Abstract; para. [0001]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Sun et al. such that it was configured to generate a plurality of rays having different energies. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for the purpose(s) of improving material discrimination and inspection capability as is a common objective in cargo radiography as suggested by Ho et al. (see for example, para. [0002]).
As per claims 2-3, Sun et al. as modified above, disclose a radiation inspection system wherein a portion of the plurality of accelerating tubes (13, 18) is configured to generate a ray pulse having a first energy, another portion of the plurality of accelerating tubes (13, 18) is configured to selectively generate a ray pulse having a second energy and a ray pulse having a third energy, (see for example, Ho et al., Abstract; para. [0001]), but do not explicitly disclose: a) the first energy is lower than the second energy, and the second energy is lower than the third energy and b) wherein the first energy is less than 1 MeV, the second energy and the third energy are both greater than 1 MeV.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify the inspection system of Sun et al. such that the generated rays have differing energy levels. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for the purposes of enabling better material discrimination, as is routinely practiced in the inspection art.
As per claim 17, Sun et al. as modified above, disclose a radiation inspection system wherein the single ray source is an electron linear accelerator (Abstract).
As per claims 18-19, Sun et al. as modified above, disclose a radiation inspection method as recited in claim 1, comprising: causing a portion of a plurality of accelerating tubes (13,18) to generate a ray pulse having a first energy at a first moment of a scanning period; and receiving a detection signal detected by a detector after the ray pulse having the first energy acts on the inspected object and causing another portion of the plurality of accelerating tubes (13,18) to generate a ray pulse having one of a second energy (or third energy) higher than the first energy at the next moment of the scanning period. Sun et al. as modified do not explicitly disclose a judgement step determining whether a received signal is below a threshold and in a case where the signal is lower than a threshold, causing the subsequent emission of rays having a higher energy than the first ray pulse.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify the method of Sun et al. to incorporate a determination step that evaluates whether a received signal is below a predetermined threshold and apply a second or third radiation of a higher energy in response. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for the purposes of identifying whether a first ray’s pulse is sufficient to penetrate an inspection object, resulting in a signal above a threshold. As is understood in the inspection art, switching to a higher energy ray (after a below threshold signal) can provide additional information and/or reveal hidden objects not visible with a lower first energy scan. The process of evaluating and changing beam parameters is synonymous with adaptive scanning, a well-known technique in the inspection art used to optimize detection and identification of materials in an inspected object.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-16 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 4 and dependent claims 5-16, the Examiner found no reference in the prior art that disclosed or rendered obvious a radiation inspection apparatus wherein the single ray source further comprises:
an electronic beam generating device configured to generate a plurality of electronic beams;
a microwave generating device configured to generate a microwave;
a microwave circulator having a power input port and at least two power output ports, the power input port being connected with the microwave generating device through a waveguide structure; and
a controller in signal connection with the processor, the electronic beam generating device and the microwave generating device and configured to perform, according to instructions of the processor, chronological control on microwave power of the microwave generating device and perform chronological control on beam loadings generated by the electronic beam generating device and respectively corresponding to electronic beams of the plurality of accelerating tubes, wherein the plurality of accelerating tubes are connected with the electronic beam generating device, and are respectively connected with the at least two power output ports, and are configured to respectively receive a plurality of electronic beams generated by the electronic beam generating device, and respectively accelerate the plurality of electronic beams through microwaves received from the at least two power output ports, wherein to respectively generate a plurality of radiation pulses having different radiation energies.
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