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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims status: amended claims 1-3, 15; canceled claim: 8; the rest is unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is argued in pg.8 of the remarks that Bendahan teaches the X-ray is arranged around the scanning area from four sides. The examiner respectfully disagrees, in para. [0056] Bendahan teaches the x-ray sources are arranged in U geometry (3 sides); fig.4 also shows the x-rays sources 406 arranged in a U-shape (3 sides). Additionally, Applicant argues in 2nd para. of pg.9 of the remarks Beckmann et al. do not mention the x-ray sources arranged on 3 sides and forming a U-shape. In para. [0033] Beckmann et al. teach that the x-ray sources can be arranged around the inspection zone at least on two sides of the tunnel, para. [0047] teaches the x-ray sources being arranged around the inspection area in a U-shape. Therefore, the rejection is maintained and made final.
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 1-7, 9-21 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.
The word “merely” recited in L6 of claim 1 is vague and indefinite which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-7, 9-21 are rejected on the same basis as claim 1 for dependency reasons.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 17, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendahan (US 2019/0137651 A1; pub. May 9, 2019) in view of Beckmann et al. (US 2013/0170611 A1; pub. Jul. 4, 2013).
Regarding claim 1, Bendahan discloses: A ray scanning apparatus, comprising:
a conveying device, for conveying an object under inspection to pass through a scanning area of the ray scanning apparatus (fig.3A);
a ray source assembly (fig.3A item 320), comprising a plurality of ray source modules, each ray source module comprising at least one ray source point emitting a ray beam,
a detector assembly (fig.3A item 304), for detecting rays transmitting through the object under inspection during scanning and comprising a plurality of detector sets, end portions of the plurality of detector sets being connected to each other to surround the scanning area, and the plurality of detector sets being fixed in a plane perpendicular to the conveying direction of the object under inspection,
wherein the detector assembly (fig.3A item 304) is located between the ray source assembly (fig.3A item 320) and the scanning area in a direction perpendicular to the conveying direction (fig.3A item 335) of the object under inspection, the ray source assembly and the detector assembly are arranged to overlap at least partially in the conveying direction of the object under inspection, and the plurality of ray source modules can be mounted and detached independently of each other.
Bendahan is silent about: the plurality of ray source modules being arranged around the scanning area in a non-enclosed structure opened on a left or right side of the scanning area merely from three sides in a U-shape with opening toward a left or right side of the scanning area and fixed in a plane perpendicular to a conveying direction of the object under inspection
In a similar field of endeavor, Beckmann et al. disclose: the plurality of ray source modules being arranged around the scanning area in a non-enclosed structure opened on a left or right side of the scanning area merely from three sides in a U-shape with opening toward a left or right side of the scanning area and fixed in a plane perpendicular to a conveying direction of the object under inspection (para. [0047]) motivated by the benefits for scalable device.
In light of the benefits for a scalable device, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sources configuration of Beckmann et al. in the apparatus of Bendahan.
Regarding claim 2, Bendahan discloses: the ray source module (fig.3A item 320) is a distributed ray source (fig.3A item 335 is the direction the object 312 under inspection follows).
Regarding claim 3, Bendahan discloses: each of the plurality of ray source modules (fig.3A item 320) is a straight line distributed ray source, and a plurality of straight line distributed ray sources are arranged on upper side, lower side. Beckmann et al. disclose: one of left and right sides of the scanning area respectively to form the U-shape with the opening toward the left or right side of the scanning area, wherein end portions of the plurality of straight line distributed ray sources are directly connected to or spaced apart from each other (para. [0047]) motivated by the benefits for scalable device
Regarding claim 4, Bendahan discloses: the plurality of ray source modules (fig.3A item 320) comprise a plurality of first distributed ray sources and a plurality of second distributed ray sources, the plurality of first distributed ray sources are arranged alternately with the plurality of second distributed ray sources, and their end portions are directly connected to or spaced apart from each other.
Regarding claim 5, Bendahan discloses: the first distributed ray sources (fig.3A item 320) are straight line distributed ray sources, and the second distributed ray sources are straight line distributed ray sources or arc-shaped distributed ray sources shorter than the first distributed ray sources.
Regarding claim 6, Beckmann et al. disclose: each of the plurality of ray source modules is a single-point source group, a plurality of single-point source groups are arranged at least on a top view angle, a bottom view angle, one of left and right view angles, and at least some of corner squint angles of the scanning area, and each single-point source group includes at least two single-point sources (para. [0047]) motivated by the benefits for scalable device.
Regarding claim 7, Bendahan discloses: each ray source module comprises a separate chamber to accommodate a respective ray generating device, and the chamber of each ray source module includes a separate vacuum chamber for accommodating a plurality of target spots (para. [0137]).
Regarding claim 9, Beckmann et al. disclose: a distance between the target spots in each ray source module is smaller than a distance between the target spots of end portions of adjacent ray source modules (para. [0047]) motivated by the benefits for scalable device.
Regarding claim 11, Bendahan discloses: each detector set is a detector array comprising a plurality of detector units (fig.3A item 320), and the plurality of detector sets are arranged in an enclosed square, rectangular, polygonal, or elliptical structure surrounding the scanning area.
Regarding claim 12, Bendahan discloses: each detector set is a straight line detector array, and the detector assembly comprises four straight line detector arrays (fig.3A item 320), which are arranged on the upper, lower, left, and right sides of the scanning area respectively to form the rectangular or square structure (para. [0137]).
Regarding claim 13, Bendahan discloses: each detector set (fig.3A item 304) is a straight line detector array, the detector assembly comprises a plurality of first straight line detector arrays and a plurality of second straight line detector arrays. Beckmann et al. disclose: the second straight line detector arrays are shorter than the first straight line detector arrays, and the plurality of first straight line detector arrays and the plurality of second straight line detector arrays are arranged alternately around the scanning area to form the polygonal structure (para. [0047]) motivated by the benefits for scalable device.
Regarding claim 17, Beckmann et al. disclose: each detector set of the detector assembly on the same side as a ray source module relative to the scanning area is configured to avoid the ray beam of said ray source module and to receive rays from the ray source modules on all the remaining sides except said ray source module (para. [0047]) motivated by the benefits for improved SNR.
Regarding claim 21, Bendahan discloses: an image processing module configured to compensate for missing projection data at end portions of the ray source modules and/or repair a reconstructed image to obtain a complete reconstructed image, wherein the image processing module is configured to perform image reconstruction by an iterative method, an image domain repair method, or a combination of the both (para. [0149]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendahan (US 2019/0137651 A1; pub. May 9, 2019) in view of Beckmann et al. (US 2013/0170611 A1; pub. Jul. 4, 2013) and further in view of Li et al. (US 2018/0180746 A1; pub. Jun. 28, 2018).
Regarding claim 14, the combined references are silent about: the respective detector sets of the detector assembly can be mounted and detached independently of each other.
In a similar field of endeavor, Li et al. disclose: the respective detector sets of the detector assembly can be mounted and detached independently of each other (para. [0047]) motivated by the benefits for scalable detector.
In light of the benefits for a scalable detector, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the detectors of Li et al. in the apparatus of Bendahan.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendahan (US 2019/0137651 A1; pub. May 9, 2019) in view of Beckmann et al. (US 2013/0170611 A1; pub. Jul. 4, 2013) and further in view of Ding et al. (CN108121014A; pub. Jun. 05, 2018).
Regarding claim 18, the combined references are silent about: each detector unit of the detector set comprises a detector crystal for receiving the rays transmitting through the object under inspection during scanning, and the detector crystal is arranged at an end portion of the detector unit in the conveying direction of the object under inspection and arranged to be, in the conveying direction of the object under inspection, immediately adjacent to emission area of the ray beam of the ray source module on the same side relative to the scanning area while not to obstruct the ray beam.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ding et al. disclose: an inspection device (para. [0009]) including front end detector crystal (para. [0053]) motivated by the benefits for an improved and cost-effective inspection apparatus (Ding et al. para. [0023]).
In light of the benefits for an improved and cost-effective inspection apparatus as taught by Ding et al., it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Bendahan and Beckmann et al. with the teachings of Ding et al.
Regarding claim 19, Beckmann et al. disclose: each ray source module of the ray source assembly on the same side as a detector set relative to the scanning area is arranged so that its ray beam avoids said detector set and illuminates the detector crystal of the detector set on the opposite side of the ray source module (para. [0047]) motivated by the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendahan (US 2019/0137651 A1; pub. May 9, 2019) in view of Beckmann et al. (US 2013/0170611 A1; pub. Jul. 4, 2013) in view of Ding et al. (CN108121014A; pub. Jun. 05, 2018) and further in view of Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088 A1; pub. Jul. 22, 2021).
Regarding claim 20, the combined references are silent about: each ray source module is configured to rotate around a target spot axis so as to illuminate the detector crystal of the detector set on the opposite side of the ray source module with a center position of the ray beam.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sivakumar et al. disclose: each ray source module is configured to rotate around a target spot axis so as to illuminate the detector crystal of the detector set on the opposite side of the ray source module with a center position of the ray beam (para. [0088]) motivated by the benefits for an improved and fast threat detection (Sivakumar et al. para. [0019]-[0020], [0088]).
In light of the benefits for an improved and fast threat detection as taught by Sivakumar et al., it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Bendahan, Beckmann et al. and Ding et al. with the teachings of Sivakumar et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 10, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the separate chamber of each ray source module is provided with a mounting-positioning structure, which is adapted for mounting and positioning the ray source module and rotating the ray source module to adjust an output angle of the ray beam.
Regarding claim 15, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the detector sets on the upper and lower sides of the scanning area and at the opening of the U-shape of the ray source assembly are configured to move in the direction perpendicular to the conveying direction of the object under inspection for being mounted and detached, while the detector set on an opposite side of the opening of the structure of the ray source assembly is configured to move in the conveying direction of the object under inspection for being mounted and detached.
Regarding claim 16, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: each detector set of the detector assembly comprises a detector arm, the ray scanning apparatus comprises a support frame being stationary relative to a mounting platform of the ray scanning apparatus, and the detector set is mounted to or detached from the support frame via the detector arm.
Conclusion
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 MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-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, 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884