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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/13/2024 and 5/16/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “filter” in the claims is used by the claim to mean “collimator,” while the accepted meaning is “spectrally alter or partially attenuate.” The term is indefinite because Applicant is using a term in a manner repugnant to its accepted meaning as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Throughout the x-ray arts, both medical and industrial, the term “filter” is uniformly limited to a device that spectrally alters x-ray emission (such as k-edge filters) and/or partially attenuates x-ray emission (such as a beam hardening filter, or such as a bowtie filter in CT imaging). By stark contrast, the term “collimator” uniformly describes a device that spatially limits x-ray emission (such as Applicant’s collimator, or an antiscatter grid, or a diaphragm). This is true regardless of whether the x-rays are actually parallel upon exiting the collimator. Although a collimator or grid may be considered to be a spatial filter in the general sense, that is not how the term is used in a century of x-ray related arts. Evidence for this may be seen in the definitions of US class 378, as well as in the definitions of CPC subgroups A61B 6/06 (collimators for medical x-ray systems), G01N 23/00 and 2223/00 (both covering industrial x-ray systems), and particularly in G21K 1/02+ (where x-ray collimators, per se, are classified) and G21K 1/10 (where x-ray filters, per se, are classified). Even a cursory search of the prior art will readily support these facts, including the references cited in the IDS and the references cited in the attached PTO-892 form.
The meets and bounds of the claims are indefinite because Applicant’s disclosure does not redefine the term “filter” to match the described function of the collimator. It is only by careful review of the disclosure and drawings that the Examiner has been able to determine that the “filter” is not spectrally altering the x-rays, but is actually functioning as what one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as a “collimator” or “grid”. It is for this reason that the application is classified in G21K 1/025 and A61B 6/4291 (detector paired with a grid). Further, the term “filter” or equivalents and variants thereof are not found in the Examiner’s search history, because 20 years of examining experience in the x-ray arts has informed the Examiner that no relevant art to the claimed invention may be expected to be found. This is particularly considering the staggering amount of irrelevant art that will be generated by using the term “filter” and/or by searching in filter-specific classifications.
Although claim 1 does require that the x-rays are “spatially filtered”, the fact remains that a term of art is being used in a manner repugnant to its accepted meaning, particularly when the proper term of art exists. Misuse of the term of art also means that any corresponding publications associated with this disclosure are unlikely to be found by PHOSITA, by US and foreign patent examiners, and by the public at large. It is incumbent on the USPTO to ensure that terms of art be used consistently, where appropriate, in order to ensure that the public is apprised of the scope of the claims.
For any or all of the above reasons, it is respectfully requested that all grammatical variants of the term “filter” be replaced with the corresponding variants of the term “collimator” throughout the claims and specification. No new matter will be added at least because this rejection brings the issue to light and makes clear the need for the amendment.
Claim 1 is further indefinite at least because the phrases “follow one another in a…direction” and “move away from the center of the filtering device” do not make sense. Based on the drawings, the Examiner is left to conclude that the invention is intended to be a diverging collimator. The claims shall be examined upon these merits.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under this paragraph by virtue of their dependence upon claim 1, thus incorporating the indefinite subject matter, and further for failing to remedy any of the noted deficiencies.
What follows is an examination on the merits that will use the proper terms of art. Applicant may refer to the Examiner’s phrasing as a guide for subsequent amendments.
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 and a second series of plates 13; the first and second series of plates 13 being arranged in orthogonal rows and columns (par.0059); where the first series of plates 13 and the second series of plates 13 are each 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 it 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (cited on the attached PTO-892 unless otherwise specified):
US pg-pub to Cho et al. teaches the practice of providing a spatial x-ray dose detector for identifying unwanted sources of scattered radiation in the room (par.0108); patent documents to Chakrabarti et al. teach measuring x-ray scattering during patient imaging; and patent documents to Hohmann et al. teach predicting and visually mapping relative intensities of scattered x-rays in a medical space;
Patent documents to Cunningham et al., to Le Goaller, and to Liu et al. each teach superimposed, co-registered display of optical and gamma images of a given scene; and
The remaining prior art sets forth the state of the art of divergent x-ray and gamma ray collimators mated to spatial (pixelated) imagers, and to the construction of collimators in general.
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