Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/584,859

X-RAY INSPECTION APPARATUS

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Feb 22, 2024
Examiner
SONG, HOON K
Art Unit
2884
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Ishida Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
1294 granted / 1505 resolved
+18.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1541
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
39.1%
-0.9% vs TC avg
§102
39.9%
-0.1% vs TC avg
§112
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1505 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not describe “a control unit configured to stop supply of electric power to the X-ray detection unit to stop irradiation of the X-ray by the X-ray irradiation unit”. The speciation describes “When the error signal is output from the monitoring unit 19, the control unit 8 stops the operation of the fan 18. In other words, when the abnormality in the cold air blower 9 is detected, the control unit 8 stops the blowing of air to the X-ray detection unit 6. When the error signal is output from the monitoring unit 19, the control unit 8 stops the irradiation of the X-ray by the X-ray irradiation unit 5” (see para 38). However it does not describe “a control unit configured to stop supply of electric power to the X-ray detection unit to stop irradiation of the X-ray by the X-ray irradiation unit” as claimed. 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (US 20190297717) in view of.Kasprowicz Grzegorz et al. (Journal of Fusion Energy) and McCarthy Jr (US 20040109538). Regarding claim 1, Kondo teaches an X-ray inspection apparatus comprising: a conveyance unit 5 configured to convey an article; an X-ray irradiation unit 6 configured to irradiate the article conveyed by the conveyance unit with an X-ray; an X-ray detection unit 7 configured to detect the X-ray having transmitted through the article; an inspection unit configured to generate an X-ray transmission image from the X-ray detected by the X-ray detection unit, the inspection unit being configured to inspect the article on the basis of the X-ray transmission image (para 20); a housing 2 configured to house the X-ray irradiation unit and the X-ray detection unit; a cold air blower 40 configured to cool air in the housing, the cold air blower being configured to guide cold air to the X-ray detection unit via a duct (figures 2 and 3, para 30-33). However Kondo fails to teach a monitoring unit configured to monitor a state of the cold air blower; and a control unit configured to stop supply of electric power to the X-ray detection unit in a case where an abnormality in the cold air blower is detected in the monitoring unit. Kasprowicz teaches a monitoring unit configured to monitor a state of the cold air blower; and a control unit configured to stop supply of electric power to a detection unit in a case where an abnormality in the cold air blower is detected in the monitoring unit (page 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the system of Kondo with the monitoring unit as taught by Kasprowicz, since it would better x-ray detection protection. Further Kondo fails to teach stopping irradiation of the x-ray by the x-ray irradiation unit. McCarthy teaches stopping irradiation of the x-ray by the x-ray irradiation unit (para 29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the system of Kondo with the stopping as taught by McCarthy, since it would better x-ray emission protection. Regarding claim 2, Kondo teaches the cold air blower is configured to cool the air in the housing by inside air circulation to generate the cold air, a discharge unit configured to discharge water generated in the housing to the outside of the housing is included, and the discharge unit includes a sealing part or a check valve configured to suppress the inflow of outside air into the housing (para 27). Regarding claim 3, Kasprowicz teaches in a case where the abnormality in the cold air blower is detected in the monitoring unit, blowing of air to the X-ray detection unit is stopped (page 8). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 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. 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 HOON K SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2494. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 10am to 7pm. 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. /HOON K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 22, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 29, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599781
ASSESSING TREATMENT PARAMETERS FOR RADIATION TREATMENT PLANNING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603191
ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION FOCUSING DEVICE AND APPLICATIONS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599346
PHOTON COUNTING COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY APPARATUS AND PHOTON-COUNTING CT-SCANNING CONDITION SETTING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599344
X-RAY CT APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589260
TIMING-BASED METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUMS FOR A GATED LINEAR ACCELERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+8.5%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1505 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month