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 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 7 and 20 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.
Claim 7 recites: “wherein the first surface of the main member is opposed to the second surface of the main member and about 0.2 mm to about 3 mm.” It is not certain what is meant by “about 0.2 mm to about 3 mm.” This could mean that the first surface is about 0.2 mm to about 3 mm thick, or that the first surface is positioned about 0.2 mm to about 3 mm from the second surface. The metes and bounds are indeterminable.
Claim 20 recites the limitations "the subject" and “the first position” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the image detector" in each of lines 8, 10, and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed that this is “the x-ray detector” and has been treated as such.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,071,507 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims of the patent are identical in scope with the corresponding independent claims of the instant application, with the addition of “wherein the first surface of the first covering member is positioned on and in contact with the first surface of the main member.” The claims of the instant application are broader and therefore anticipated by the claims of the patent.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,070,344 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3 of the patent recite the same elements as claims 1-2 of the instant application, with the addition of “wherein the first surface of the first covering member is positioned on and in contact with the first surface of the main member.” The claims of the instant application are broader and therefore anticipated by the claims of the patent.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2013/0202087 A1) in view of Tretiakov et al. (USPN 6,940,948 B1).
With respect to claim 1, Cox discloses a system including a filter assembly (Fig. 1 - 2 & 3), comprising: a main member (3) having a first surface and a second surface, wherein at least a first slot and a second slot are formed through the main member and the first surface and the second surface (Fig. 2 - 3 slots shown in main member (3)); a first covering member (2) having a first surface and an opposed second surface, wherein the first surface (surface facing main member (3)) is substantially co-extensive with the main member first surface and fixed relative to the main member; wherein the main member is formed of a x-ray blocking material (paragraph 0110); wherein the first slot is defined between a first internal surface and a second internal surface formed in the main member;
Cox does not specifically disclose wherein a first distance between the first internal surface and the second internal surface is about .01 mm to about 6 mm; and wherein a second distance between the third internal surface and the fourth internal surface is about .01 mm to about 6 mm. Tretiakov et al. disclose a collimator with a slit having a desired width in the range of 0.2 mm and 5 mm (column 7, lines 32-39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Cox to have a first distance between the first internal surface and the second internal surface be about .01 mm to about 6 mm; and wherein a second distance between the third internal surface and the fourth internal surface is about .01 mm to about 6 mm, as these are desired ranges, and would be a matter of design choice depending on the specific application being done, as taught by Tretiakov et al.
With respect to claim 2, Cox/Tretiakov et al. discloses wherein the main member (Cox - Fig. 2 (3)) further comprises a third slot; wherein the third slot is defined between a fifth internal surface and a sixth internal surface formed in the main member; wherein a third distance between the fifth internal surface and the sixth internal surface is about .01 mm to about 6 mm (Tretiakov et al. - column 7, lines 32-39).
With respect to claim 3, Cox/Tretiakov et al. discloses wherein the first distance, the second distance, and the third distance are all about 4 mm (Tretiakov et al. - column 7, lines 32-39).
With respect to claim 5, Cox/Tretiakov et al. discloses wherein the first covering member (Cox - 2) is formed of an aluminum alloy (paragraph 0022).
With respect to claim 7, Cox/Tretiakov et al. discloses wherein the first surface of the main member is opposed to the second surface of the main member and about 0.2 mm to about 3 mm (Tretiakov et al. - column 7, lines 32-39). This rejection is made to the extent the claim is understood.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2013/0202087 A1) in view of Tretiakov et al. (USPN 6,940,948 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mazess (USPN 5,745,544).
With respect to claim 14, Cox/Tretiakov et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the first distance and the second distance substantially eliminate parallax in an image generated with image data acquired with an x-ray source and x-ray detector spaced from the main member. Mazess discloses a collimator that eliminates parallax in an image generated with image data acquired with an x-ray source (12) and x-ray detector (13) spaced from a collimator (column 3, lines 30-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Cox/Tretiakov et al. to have the first distance and the second distance substantially eliminate parallax in an image generated with image data acquired with an x-ray source and x-ray detector spaced from the main member, to produce a radiograph with high contrast, as taught by Mazess.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JURIE YUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2497. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 am - 7:30 pm.
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.
/JURIE YUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
February 18, 2026