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 § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kok (US 2019/0343471 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kok discloses an assembly 100 (Figs.7, 9 and 11), including:
a) an x-ray collimator device 10 configured to collimate x-rays as a function of the direction of emission; and
b) an imager 106, 104 assembled facing the x-ray collimator device 10 so as to receive x-rays collimated by the x-ray collimator device 10, the imager 106, 104 being configured to produce a radiographic image from the x-rays collimated by the x-ray collimator device 10; where
c) the x-ray collimator device 10 includes several plates 13, the plates including a material capable of absorbing x-rays (par.0059), the plates 13 including a first series of plates 13 each having a longitudinal dimension along a first direction, and a second series of plates 13 each having a longitudinal dimension along a second direction; the first and second series of plates 13 (par.0059: “arranged in several rows and/or columns”); where the first series of plates 13 and the second series of plates 13 are each oriented according to a predefined angle of orientation (arranged so as to define incident x-ray directions that are divergent in a direction normal to the x-ray incident surface of the imager 106, 104; Figs.9 and 11).
With respect to claim 2, Kok further discloses at least two of the first plates 13 are not parallel to one another and at least two of the second plates 13 are not parallel to one another (Figs.9 and 11; par.0105).
With respect to claim 3, Kok further discloses spaces separating the plates 13 from one another (par.0059).
With respect to claim 4, Kok further discloses transparent portions disposed between the plates 13, the transparent portions being produced in a material that is transparent to x-rays (par.0059).
With respect to claim 5, Kok further discloses that the imager 106, 104 is curved (Fig.11).
With respect to claim 6, Kok further discloses that the imager 106, 104 has a hemispherical form (Fig.11).
With respect to claim 7, Kok further discloses that the imager 106, 104 is flat (Fig.9).
With respect to claim 8, Kok further discloses that the x-ray collimator device 10 and the imager 106, 104 have the same general form (Fig.11).
Claims 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lightfoot (US 5,371,370) as evidenced by Barnes (US 4,340,818 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lightfoot discloses an assembly (Fig.6), including:
a) an x-ray collimator device configured to collimate the x-rays as a function of their direction of emission (col.1, lines 51-55); and
b) an imager 7 assembled facing the x-ray collimator device so as to receive the x-rays collimated by the x-ray collimator device to produce a radiographic image form the x-rays.
Further regarding claim 1, Lightfoot describes the known collimator has having diverging holes; however, Lightfoot does not delve into the structural details of the diverging collimator since it is so well known (col.1, lines 51-55).
Barnes provides an evidentiary example of constructing a converging or diverging x-ray collimator by providing two sets of attenuating plates in rows and columns orthogonal to one another, where the plates of each set of plates fan out in order to define a converging or diverging field of view as described by Lightfoot (see Barnes: Figs.1 and 2; col.1, lines 46-57). Even here, the general construction is so well known that Barnes (issue year 1982) describes the general 2D focused grid as prior art.
With respect to claim 2, Lightfoot further discloses that at least two plates of the first set of plates are not parallel to one another, and at least two plates of the second set of plates are not parallel to one another, (divergent holes, col.1, lines 51-55) as evidenced by Barnes (Figs.1 and 2).
With respect to claim 3, Lightfoot further discloses spaces separating the plates from one another (inherent to create the diverging holes, col.1, lines 51-55) as evidenced by Barnes (Figs.1 and 2).
With respect to claim 7, Lightfoot further discloses that the imager 7 is flat (Fig.6).
With respect to claim 8, Lightfoot further discloses that the collimating device and the imager have the same general form (flat, Fig.6).
With respect to claim 9, Lightfoot further discloses (Fig.6):
c) an optical camera 24 having the same field of view as the imager 7, the optical camera 24 being configured to produce an optical image; and
d) a reading 20 and display 23 device connected to the imager 7 and to the camera 24, the reading and display device configured to read the image received from the imager 7 and the optical image from the camera 24, superimpose the radiographic image and the optical image, and display the superimposition of the radiographic image with the optical image (col.8, line 62, through col.9, line 4).
Response to Arguments
The present amendments to the claims overcome the outstanding 35 USC 112(b) rejections of record. The Office acknowledges with gratitude the use of proper terms of art throughout the claims and specification.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue:
A) Kok does not disclose a second set of plates in the orthogonal direction; and
B) Barnes does not remedy the deficiencies of Lightfoot because the disclosure is limited to converging grids.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees on all points.
A). In the reprised rejection above, the Examiner has included the relevant quote within par.0059 that demonstrates that Kok contemplates embodiments with orthogonal sets of plates: “arranged in several rows and/or columns”.
It is true that most of the detailed disclosure focuses on 1D grids that preferentially bend in one direction due to the relative rigidity of the plates (par.0069). However, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that, in the event that orthogonal plates are included, then the isotropic expansion of the electropolymer layer would then bend the 2D grid equally in both orthogonal directions since the 2D grid is equally stiff in both directions. The direct result is changing the focus of the grid in both directions since both sets of plates will be tilted accordingly, thus anticipating the limitations now spelled out in claim 1 as amended.
In addition, Kok further teaches a stack of electrode layers that may preferentially adjust the focus in either the row and/or column direction (par.0086: “the cover element may be expanded laterally and squeezed and/or refined in a perpendicular direction”).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection has been maintained.
B). It is true that Barnes discloses converging focused grids. However, the test for obviousness is what the teachings of the prior art as a whole reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, the skilled artisan would simply flip over the grid of Barnes in order to achieve the 2D diverging grid of Lightfoot, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation.
For at least this reason, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US patent documents to Stein teach flipping a diverging 2D grid to provide the desired focusing grid (Figs.17B, 18C and 18D; par.0080 of US 2010/0260316 A1); and
US patent to DeVito (see attached PTO-892) teaches a diverging 2D grid mated to a 2D detector (Fig.7 and col.22, lines 56-64).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THOMAS R ARTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2485. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6:30pm.
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 on 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.
THOMAS R. ARTMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/THOMAS R ARTMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights