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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a sample holder coupled to the first rotation stage claimed in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a computing entity claimed in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
FIGS. 4 and 13 are objected to because reference characters are not legible.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0035], line 4, --D3-- should be inserted after “scanning volume”.
Paragraph [0035], line 9, --D6-- should be inserted after “the rigid arm”.
Paragraph [0035], line 10, “collimator” should be replaced by --slit collimator D7--.
Paragraph [0035], line 10, --D1-- should be inserted after “TDI line camera array”.
Paragraph [0035], line 11. “arm” should be replaced by--rigid arm D6--.
Paragraph [0035], line 13, --D8-- should be inserted after “the X-ray source”.
Paragraph [0035], lines 13-14, “array camera” after “TDI line” should be replaced by --camera array D1--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Please note that paragraph numbers in a U. S. Patent Application Publication do not correspond to paragraph numbers in the originally-filed specification. The paragraph numbers mentioned above refer to the originally-filed specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) An apparatus, comprising:
a first rotation stage;
a sample holder coupled to the first rotation stage, the sample holder holding a sample;
an X-ray source that emits a cone beam of radiation;
an assembly comprising a rigid arm having a first end portion, [[and]] a second end portion, a collimator supported on the rigid arm adjacent the first end portion and between the X-ray source and the sample holder, and a line array detector including an active imaging area (a positive limitation) supported on the rigid arm adjacent the second end portion;
a second rotation stage having an axis and connected to the rigid arm adjacent the first end portion, the rigid arm configured to rotate about [[its]] the axis (a previously recited limitation) to sweep [[an]] the active imaging area of the line array detector on a constant radius with respect to the X-ray source during a scan; and
a computing entity that controls rotations of the first rotation stage and the second rotary stage, retrieves line images generated from the line array detector, and reconstructs a volumetric representation of the sample based on the retrieved line images.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
3. (Proposed Amendments) The apparatus as described in claim 2, wherein the line array detector (a previously recited limitation in claim 1) comprises a first number of pixels nx in a first direction, and a second number of pixels ny in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, wherein ny is greater to or equal to 1, and nx is at least one order of magnitude larger than ny.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
10. (Proposed Amendments) A method of imaging, comprising:
positioning a sample between an X-ray source and a line array detector;
collimating x-rays from the x-ray source into a wedge-shaped beam;
passing the wedge-shaped beam through [[a]] the sample (a previously recited limitation) as the line array detector reciprocates along an arc to generate a plurality of line images;
assemble a first subset of the plurality of line images into a first 2D image;
assemble an nth subset of the plurality of line images into an nth 2D image,
wherein a total number of subsets and corresponding 2D images is more than 2; and
processing a corresponding 2D images into a 3D volumetric representation of the sample.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
12. (Proposed Amendments) The method as described in claim 11, wherein an X-ray assembly including the X-ray source and the line array detector rotate about an axis passing through the .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
13. (Proposed Amendments) The method as described in claim 10, wherein a corresponding 2D images are processed into the 3D volumetric representation of the sample (a previously recited limitation in claim 10) using a CBCT algorithm.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
14. (Proposed Amendments) The method as described in claim 10, wherein the sample is rotated about an axis through the sample and perpendicular to the wedge-shaped beam (a previously recited limitation in claim 10) such that each line image of the plurality of line images is obtained at a different [[such]] rotation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
15. (Proposed Amendments) The method as described in claim 10, wherein each of the first 2D image and the nth 2D image (previously recited limitations in claim 10) is a 2D image that is obtained at a particular rotational position of the sample relative to an [[x-ray]] X-ray assembly including the X-ray source and the line array detector.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 18 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
18. (Proposed Amendments) The method as described in claim 10, wherein the line array detector is associated with a first rotation stage, and wherein the sample is associated with a second rotation stage, and wherein the nth subset of the plurality of line images is obtained by one of: (i) keeping the second rotation stage at a constant rotation angle while a rotation angle of the first rotation stage is varied for each line image, and (ii) keeping the first rotation stage at a constant rotation angle while [[the]] a rotation angle (a lack of an antecedent basis) of the second rotation stage is varied for each line image.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
19. (Proposed Amendments) The method of claim 18, wherein the plurality of 2D images is obtained by one of: (i) varying the rotation angle of the second rotation stage [[angle]]; and (ii) varying the rotation angle of the first rotation stage [[angle]] (previously recited limitation in claim 18).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover a corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover a corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: a computing entity in claims 1-9.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover a corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claim 5 recites a limitation “the X-ray source is fixed” in line 1. However, the specification does not describe how the X-ray source is fixed. Therefore, the claim 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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 5 recites a functional limitation “the X-ray source is fixed” in line 1, which renders the claim indefinite because the boundaries of the functional limitation are unclear.
During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. It is a best practice to make the record clear during prosecution by explaining the BRI of claim terms, as necessary, including explaining the BRI of any functional language. When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked, the BRI of the “means-plus-function” limitation is restricted to a corresponding structure in the supporting disclosure, and its equivalents (a corresponding specification that identifies and links a structure, material, or act to the function recited in the claim is considered to be part of the claim limitation). When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked and an element is recited along with a function, that element is construed as being capable of performing the function – in other words, the BRI of that element is limited by the function.
It should be kept in mind, however, that there is a distinction between reciting a function compared to reciting an intended use or result. A functional limitation can provide a patentable distinction (limit the claim scope) by imposing limits on the function of a structure, material, or action. Typically, no patentable distinction (no limit on the claim scope) is made by an intended use or result unless some structural difference is imposed by the use or result on the structure or material recited in the claim, or some manipulative difference is imposed by the use or result on the action recited in the claim.
While functional limitations may be properly used in claims, the boundaries imposed by a functional limitation must be clearly defined to be definite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim language that merely states a result to be obtained without providing boundaries on the claim scope (e.g., by not specifying any way to achieve those results) is unclear. Consider the following to determine whether a claim limitation expressed in functional language has clear boundaries: whether one of ordinary skill in the art can determine what structure, material, or act in the claim performs this function; whether the limitation has well defined boundaries or only expresses a problem solved or intended result; and what an anticipatory reference would need to disclose in order to satisfy this claim limitation. These considerations are not all-inclusive or limiting.
When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked, the specification must adequately disclose a corresponding structure, material, or act that performs the function. For “means”-type claims, an adequate disclosure requires that a corresponding structure or material is: (a) disclosed in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand what specific structure or material the inventor has identified to perform the recited function; (b) sufficient to perform the entire function recited in the claim limitation; and (c) clearly linked to the function in the written description.
When the examiner determines that the boundaries of a claim are not reasonably clear, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. Such a rejection puts the applicant on notice that it must fulfill its statutory duty under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to ensure that claim language clearly defines the boundaries of the claim scope sought. In making a rejection, the examiner must identify the specific claim language that is indefinite, and explain why that language renders the boundaries of the claim unclear. When possible, the examiner should suggest how the indefiniteness issues may be resolved.
The boundaries of the functional language are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a first rotation stage, a sample holder, an X-ray source, an assembly, a second rotation stage, and a computing entity, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the apparatus in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
The limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (“the X-ray source is fixed”) without providing any indication about how the function is performed. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a first rotation stage, a sample holder, an X-ray source, an assembly, a second rotation stage, and a computing entity, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the apparatus in a certain manner.
Claim 19 recites a limitation “the plurality of 2D images” in line 1, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 10 previously recites a limitation “a plurality of line images” in line 5.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 fails to set forth an additional structural limitation of the apparatus. See MPEP § 2115. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 1-3 and 6-9, Bambot et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,504,077 B2) disclosed an apparatus, comprising:
a first rotation stage (102);
a sample holder coupled to the first rotation stage, the sample holder holding a sample;
an X-ray source (108) that emits a cone beam of radiation;
a collimator (110) comprising a slit (110A); and
a line array detector (106) including an active imaging area (112).
However, the prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggested that the apparatus, further comprising:
an assembly comprising a rigid arm having a first end portion, a second end portion, a collimator supported on the rigid arm adjacent the first end portion and between the X-ray source and the sample holder, and a line array detector including an active imaging area supported on the rigid arm adjacent the second end portion;
a second rotation stage having an axis and connected to the rigid arm adjacent the first end portion, the rigid arm configured to rotate about the axis to sweep the active imaging area of the line array detector on a constant radius with respect to the X-ray source during a scan; and
a computing entity that controls rotations of the first rotation stage and the second rotary stage, retrieves line images generated from the line array detector, and reconstructs a volumetric representation of the sample based on the retrieved line images.
With respect to claims 10-18, Bambot et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,504,077 B2) disclosed a method of imaging, comprising:
positioning a sample between an X-ray source (108) and a line array detector (106);
collimating x-rays from the x-ray source into a wedge-shaped beam (column 4, line 59 - column 5, line 39); and
passing the wedge-shaped beam through the sample as the line array detector reciprocates along an arc to generate a plurality of line images (column 33-58).
However, the prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggested that the method, further comprising:
assemble a first subset of the plurality of line images into a first 2D image;
assemble an nth subset of the plurality of line images into an nth 2D image,
wherein a total number of subsets and corresponding 2D images is more than 2; and
processing a corresponding 2D images into a 3D volumetric representation of the sample.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Caliskan (U. S. Patent No. 12,392,737 B2) disclosed a method and an apparatus for cyclic imaging of a rock sample.
Hu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,123,852 B1) disclosed a multi-functional and visual rock triaxial testing system.
Zhang et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,085,540 B1) disclosed a rock true-triaxial testing system based on computed tomographic (CT) scanning.
Nakayama et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,007,340 B2) disclosed an X-ray CT apparatus.
Omlor et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,821,860 B2) disclosed three-dimensional optical scanning for a collision avoidance in a microscopy system.
Niizaka (U. S. Patent No. 11,821,851 B2) disclosed an X-ray imaging apparatus.
Harada et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,808,718 B2) disclosed an X-ray analyzer and an X-ray analysis method.
Ueki et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,656,189 B2) disclosed an X-ray inspection device, a management server for an X-ray inspection device, and a management method for an X-ray inspection device.
Ohbayashi et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,639,904 B2) disclosed an inspection device, an inspection method, and a method for producing an object to be inspected.
Pogue et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,633,145 B2) disclosed imaging a specimen with an X-ray and optical measurement.
Bambot et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,504,077 B2) disclosed methods and systems for computed tomographic imaging of tissue.
Safai (U. S. Patent No. 11,474,052 B2) disclosed a real-time additive manufacturing process inspection using an X-ray emission and detection through a build chamber.
Cox et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,121,809 B2) disclosed multi-linear X-ray scanning systems and methods for X-ray scanning.
Feser et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,110,004 B2) disclosed a laboratory X-ray micro-tomographic system with crystallographic grain-orientation mapping capabilities.
Yun et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,068,579 B1) disclosed a process for examining mineral samples with an X-ray microscope and projection systems.
Kamegawa (U. S. Patent No. 7,792,242 B2) disclosed an X-ray CT system and an X-ray CT method.
Kobayashi (U. S. Patent No. 7,729,469 B2) disclosed an X-ray imaging apparatus.
Warner et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,639,777 B2) disclosed computed tomographic systems and related methods involving a forward collimation.
Rothschild (U. S. Patent No. 7,551,714 B2) disclosed a combined X-ray CT/neutron material identification system.
Hu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,508,908 B2) disclosed a CT method and an apparatus for a detection of a liquid safety with a radiation source.
Bendahan (U. S. Patent No. 7,492,862 B2) disclosed a computed tomographic inspection system and a method for cargos.
Ford et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,356,115 B2) disclosed radiation scanning units including a movable platform.
Kotler et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,187,752 B2) disclosed a product irradiator for optimizing a uniformity of a dose in products.
Zhou et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,082,182 B2) disclosed a computed tomographic system for imaging of human and small animal.
Kamegawa (U. S. Patent No. 7,016,465 B2) disclosed an X-ray CT apparatus.
Tretiakov et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,940,948 B1) disclosed a digital X-ray scanning apparatus.
Takagi et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,909,768 B2) disclosed a CT apparatus, a CT imaging method, and a method of providing a service.
Nisius et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,624,425 B2) disclosed waste inspection tomography and non-destructive assay.
Mohr et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,618,465 B2) disclosed a shielded digital radiographic inspection system comprising an X-ray shielding system and a method.
Bernardi et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,553,094 B1) disclosed a method of determining a content of a container of nuclear waste.
Kotler et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,504,898 B1) disclosed a product irradiator for optimizing a uniformity of a dose in products.
Cheng (U. S. Patent No. 6,470,068 B2) disclosed an X-ray computed tomographic scanning system.
D’Ambrosio (U. S. Patent No. 6,459,760 B1) disclosed apparatuses and methods for a non-destructive inspection.
Dobbs (U. S. Patent No. 6,148,058 A) disclosed a system and a method for a real-time measurement of an offset detector in a rotating-patient CT scanner.
Oikawa (U. S. Patent No. 6,104,776 A) disclosed a non-destructive test apparatus.
Kamata et al. (U. S. Patent No. 5,228,071 A) disclosed a CT system and a method.
Little et al. (U. S. Patent No. 5,119,408 A) disclosed a method and an apparatus for an X-ray computed tomographic inspection of large objects.
McCroskey et al. (U. S. Patent No. 5,023,895 A) disclosed a three-dimensional tomographic system.
Gupta et al. (U. S. Patent No. 4,989,225 A) disclosed a CAT scanner with a simultaneous translation and rotation of objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allen C. Ho, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 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, David J. 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.
Allen C. Ho, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Allen C. Ho/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Allen.Ho@uspto.gov