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, the imaging system comprising a plurality of detectors disposed opposite to the radiation source (claim 4) and the plurality of radiation sources respectively disposed opposite to the plurality of detectors (claim 14) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“slideable” should read “slidable”.
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 the 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 the 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(s) 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 limitations are:
“first adjustment assembly” in claim 10
“second adjustment assembly” in claim 10
“rotating element” in claim 11
“transmission mechanism” in claim 12
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them 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 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 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the posture adjustment structure adjusts the posture of the object to be inspected, so that the inspection surface and the main beam surface are in the same plane.” The instant claim recites both an apparatus and a method of using the apparatus. MPEP 2173.05(p)II explains that “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)”. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
The following claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) according to the same rationale as the rejection of claim 1:
Claim 2: “the imaging system scans and inspects the object to be inspected at a plurality of angles”
Claim 4: “the posture adjustment structure adjusts the posture of the object to be inspected, so that the inspection surface and the plurality of main beam surfaces are in the same plane”
Claim 5: “the posture adjustment structure moves the object to be inspected in a first direction, so that the object to be inspected has a plurality of inspection surfaces, wherein the first direction is parallel to a conveying direction of the object to be inspected”
Claim 6: “the object to be inspected is positioned by the posture adjustment structure, so that the inspection surface and the main beam surface are in the same plane”
Claim 13: “the lead screw drives the sliding mechanism to move, so that the sliding mechanism pushes the object to be inspected to slide on the first slide rail”
Claim 14: “the posture adjustment structure adjusts the posture of the object to be inspected, so that the inspection surface and the main beam surfaces of the plurality of source-detector assemblies are in the same plane”
Claim 16: “the lead screw drives the sliding mechanism to move, so that the sliding mechanism pushes the object to be inspected to slide on the first slide rail”
The claim limitations are interpreted where each previously identified step is preceded by “configured to” language.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “a relative position between the imaging system and the object to be inspected” is unclear. The specification does not define “relative position”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to precisely ascertain the meaning of the phrase. For examination purposes, it is assumed based on the specification and the language of claim 2 that “a relative position” refers to the angle between the imaging system and the object to be inspected.
Regarding claim 7, “a size value of the inspection portion in the first direction” is understood to be the thickness of the inspection portion, i.e. a length. Therefore, the claim that “a ratio of an area value of a projection of the inspection portion in the first direction to a size value of the inspection portion in the first direction is greater than or equal to 10” is unclear because the ratio of an area to a length should have units of length rather than being a pure number. Furthermore, the first appearance of the phrase “the first direction” should read “a first direction” as there is insufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “deviate around a second direction” is unclear. A precise meaning cannot be ascertained from the specifications or the drawings. For examination purposes, “deviate around” is treated as meaning either “rotate around” (i.e. treating the second direction as a rotational axis) or “deviate along” (i.e. linear motion of the object along the second direction, such as raising/lowering).
The claim limitation “second adjustment assembly” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The second adjustment assembly is described in detail as exemplary embodiments, but is not strictly defined in a way that makes it clear precisely what limitations are to be considered as part of the “second adjustment assembly” of claim 10. Furthermore, the drawings pertaining to the second adjustment assembly are not sufficiently clear in showing how the second adjustment assembly is configured to drive the object to be inspected to rotate around a third direction. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “deviate around a second direction” is unclear. A precise meaning cannot be ascertained from the specifications or the drawings. For examination purposes, “deviate around” is treated as meaning either “rotate around” (i.e. treating the second direction as a rotational axis) or “deviate along” (i.e. linear motion of the object along the second direction, such as raising/lowering). Furthermore, “a rotating element rotatably disposed on the chassis with an axis parallel to the second direction as a rotational axis, wherein the rotating element is configured to drive the object to be inspected on the carrying surface to deviate around the second direction under a driving of an external force, and the rotating element is configured to drive the object to be inspected to move in the first direction under a driving of the chassis” is unclear. The limitation is not well-defined because it is difficult to understand from the claim language how a singular rotating element is capable of both driving the object to deviate around a second direction (a motion which is itself unclear) and driving the object to move in the first direction under a driving of the chassis. While the specification and drawings attempt to clarify, the drawings are insufficient in aiding understanding of the structure and function of the claimed element.
The phrase “rotating element” is rejected according to the same rationale as set forth above regarding “second adjustment assembly”. Furthermore, the drawings pertaining to the rotating element are not sufficiently clear in showing how the rotating element is configured to drive the object to be inspected to deviate around the second direction under a driving of an external force and move in the first direction under a driving of the chassis.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “transmission mechanism” is rejected according to the same rationale as set forth above regarding “second adjustment assembly”.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 104749197 A, hereinafter Chen ‘197) in view of Chen et al. (CN 113075241 A, hereinafter Chen ‘241).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Chen ‘197 teaches an inspection device for scanning and inspecting an object to be inspected, comprising:
an inspection channel (Fig. 1: conveying mechanism 110 transports object through a channel), wherein the object to be inspected enters and exits the inspection device through the inspection channel (Fig. 1: object 120 is moved linearly through the device),
an imaging system (Abstract: CT system) configured to scan and inspect the object to be inspected, and the imaging system comprises:
a radiation source (Fig. 2: X-ray source 23) configured to generate a ray (Fig. 2: rays pictured emitting from source), wherein the radiation source is disposed on one side of the inspection channel (Fig. 2: source 23 is on right side of channel. Note Fig. 2 shows the arrangement of a scanning level A, B, or C of Fig. 1), and the ray at least forms a main beam surface applicable to scan and inspect the object to be inspected; and
a detector (Fig. 2: detector 24) configured to receive the ray passing through the object to be inspected, wherein the detector is disposed on the other side of the inspection channel (Fig. 2: detector 24 on left side of channel) to form an inspection region between the radiation source and the detector (Fig. 1: scanning levels A, B, C)
Chen ‘197 does not teach
a posture adjustment structure disposed in the inspection region and configured to adjust a posture of the object to be inspected located in the inspection region,
wherein the object to be inspected has an inspection surface, and the posture adjustment structure adjusts the posture of the object to be inspected, so that the inspection surface and the main beam surface are in a same plane.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen ‘241 teaches an inspection device for scanning and inspecting an object to be inspected, comprising:
an imaging system configured to scan and inspect the object to be inspected (Abstract), and the imaging system comprises:
a radiation source (Fig. 2: X-ray source 10) configured to generate a ray (Fig. 2: rays pictured emitting from source)
a detector (Fig. 2: detector 20) configured to receive the ray passing through the object to be inspected
a posture adjustment structure disposed in the inspection region and configured to adjust a posture of the object to be inspected located in the inspection region (Paragraph beginning with “for sample stage” in machine translation: sample stage 30 is provided with a turntable for horizontal rotation of the sample, and incline of table is adjustable),
wherein the object to be inspected has an inspection surface, and the posture adjustment structure adjusts the posture of the object to be inspected, so that the inspection surface and the main beam surface are in a same plane (Paragraph beginning with “for sample stage” in machine translation: sample stage 30 is provided with a turntable for horizontal rotation of the sample, and incline of table is adjustable).
This provides the benefit of allowing the object to be scanned from a plurality of angles, providing more comprehensive X-ray imaging information of the sample. In light of the teachings of Chen ‘241, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen ‘197 to include a rotatable and/or inclinable stage in the inspection region.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Chen ‘197 does not teach in the plane where the main beam surface is located, a relative position between the imaging system and the object to be inspected is changeable, so that the imaging system scans and inspects the object to be inspected at a plurality of angles.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen ‘241 teaches in the plane where the main beam surface is located, a relative position between the imaging system and the object to be inspected is changeable, so that the imaging system scans and inspects the object to be inspected at a plurality of angles (Paragraph beginning with “for sample stage” in machine translation: sample stage 30 is provided with a turntable for horizontal rotation of the sample, and incline of table is adjustable). This provides the benefit of providing more comprehensive X-ray imaging information of the sample. In light of the teachings of Chen ‘241, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen ‘197 to include a rotatable and/or inclinable stage in the inspection region so that the imaging system can scan and inspect the object at a plurality of angles.
Regarding claim 3, Chen ‘197 does not teach the imaging system being rotatable relative to the object to be inspected in the plane where the main beam surface is located.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen ‘241 teaches the imaging system being rotatable relative to the object to be inspected in the plane where the main beam surface is located (Paragraph beginning with “FIG. 4 is a structural diagram” in machine translation: X-ray source and detector rotate synchronously around the sample). This provides the benefit of allowing the object to be scanned from a plurality of angles, providing more comprehensive X-ray imaging information of the sample. In light of the teachings of Chen ‘241, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen ‘197 so that the source and detector are synchronously rotatable around the sample.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Chen ‘197 teaches the imaging system comprising a plurality of detectors (Paragraph beginning with “FIG. 2 shows” in machine translation: the detectors 24 and 25 have several sections), the plurality of detectors are disposed opposite to the radiation source to form a plurality of main beam surfaces between the radiation source and the plurality of detectors (Fig. 2: a source point 211 emits multiple beams toward the several detector sections of detector 25), and the plurality of main beam surfaces are in the same plane (Fig. 2 is in a plane A, B, or C of Fig. 1). Chen ‘197 does not teach the posture adjustment structure adjusting the posture of the object to be inspected, so that the inspection surface and the plurality of main beam surfaces are in the same plane.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen ‘241 teaches a posture adjustment structure adjusting the posture of the object to be inspected, so that the inspection surface and the plurality of main beam surfaces are in the same plane (Paragraph beginning with “for sample stage” in machine translation: sample stage 30 is provided with a turntable for horizontal rotation of the sample, and incline of table is adjustable. Adjusting such that the inspection surface and main beam surfaces are in the same plane is an implicit capability of the rotatable posture adjustment structure). The posture adjustment structure provides the benefit of allowing the user to scan the object at a plurality of desired angles, providing more comprehensive X-ray imaging information of the sample and/or imaging information of a specific desired cross section. In light of the teachings of Chen ‘241, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen ‘197 to include a posture adjustment structure.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Chen ‘197 teaches moving the object to be inspected in a first direction, so that the object to be inspected has a plurality of inspection surfaces, wherein the first direction is parallel to a conveying direction of the object to be inspected (Fig. 1: object is moved along the conveyor through scanning levels A, B, and C). Chen ‘197 does not teach a posture adjustment structure moving the object.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen ‘241 teaches a posture adjustment structure moving the object (Paragraph beginning with “for sample stage” in machine translation: the sample stage can move the sample along a direction perpendicular to the beam line). This provides the benefit of allowing the user to scan the object along several cross sections, obtaining more comprehensive imaging information without having to bring the object to the beginning of the conveyor of Chen ‘197. In light of the teachings of Chen ‘241, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen ‘197 such that a posture adjustment structure is included that can adjust the object along the conveying direction.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Chen ‘197 does not teach that for each inspection surface, the object to be inspected is positioned by the posture adjustment structure, so that the inspection surface and the main beam surface are in the same plane.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen ‘241 teaches that for each inspection surface, the object to be inspected is positioned by the posture adjustment structure, so that the inspection surface and the main beam surface are in the same plane (Paragraph beginning with “for sample stage” in machine translation: sample stage 30 is provided with a turntable for rotation of the sample, and incline of table is adjustable. Adjusting such that the inspection surface and main beam surfaces are in the same plane is an implicit capability of the rotatable posture adjustment structure). This provides the benefit of allowing the user to scan and obtain information of specific desired cross sections of the object. In light of the teachings of Chen ‘241, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen ‘197 such that a posture adjustment structure is included that adjusts the object within the inspection region such that the desired inspection surface is in the plane of the main beam surface.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, all limitations are obvious or arbitrary configurations even if not explicitly taught by Chen ‘197: the object to be inspected comprises an inspection portion (understood from the specification to mean a particular subsection of interest of the object; as such, the “inspection portion” of the object is arbitrarily designated as the layer of the object the user wishes to scan), the inspection portion has the inspection surface (both the desired inspection surface and inspection portion are arbitrarily decided by a user), and a ratio of an area value of a projection of the inspection portion in the first direction to a size value of the inspection portion in the first direction is greater than or equal to 10, wherein the first direction is parallel to a conveying direction of the object to be inspected (the inspection portion can be designated such that the ratio of its cross-sectional area to its thickness is any value).
Regarding claim 8, as the inspection portion is chosen by the user, Chen ‘197 teaches a ratio of a size of the detector in the first direction to the size value of the inspection portion in the first direction being in a range of 1 to 8 (the user may simply choose the inspection portion of the object such that its thickness in the conveying direction is less than or equal to the thickness of the detector 24 of Fig. 2 in the conveying direction).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Chen ‘197 teaches the imaging system comprising a plurality of radiation sources (Fig. 2: 21, 22, 23) and a plurality of detectors (Paragraph beginning with “FIG. 2 shows” in machine translation: the detectors 24 and 25 have several sections), the plurality of radiation sources are respectively disposed opposite to the plurality of detectors are disposed opposite to the radiation source to form a plurality of source-detector assemblies (Fig. 2), a main beam surface is formed between the source and the detector of each source-detector assembly (Fig. 2: a source point 211 emits multiple beams toward the several detector sections of detector 25), and the main beam surfaces of the plurality of source-detector assemblies are located in the same plane (Fig. 2 is in a plane A, B, or C of Fig. 1). Chen ‘197 does not teach the posture adjustment structure adjusting the posture of the object to be inspected, so that the inspection surface and the main beam surfaces of the plurality of source-detector assemblies are in the same plane.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen ‘241 teaches the posture adjustment structure adjusting the posture of the object to be inspected, so that the inspection surface and the main beam surfaces of the plurality of source-detector assemblies are in the same plane (Paragraph beginning with “for sample stage” in machine translation: sample stage 30 is provided with a turntable for horizontal rotation of the sample, and incline of table is adjustable. Adjusting such that the inspection surface and main beam surfaces are in the same plane is an implicit capability of the rotatable posture adjustment structure). The posture adjustment structure provides the benefit of allowing the user to scan the object at a plurality of desired angles, providing more comprehensive X-ray imaging information of the sample and/or imaging information of a specific desired cross section. In light of the teachings of Chen ‘241, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen ‘197 to include a posture adjustment structure.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen ‘197 in view of Chen ‘241, and further in view of Matney et al. (US 20190317028 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chen ‘197 and Chen ‘241 does not teach a focus size of the radiation source being less than or equal to 1 mm.
In the same field of endeavor, Matney teaches a focus size of the radiation source being less than or equal to 1 mm (Paragraph [0035]). The imaging radiation source having a small focus size in this range provides higher resolution results, as is well known in the art. In light of the teachings of Matney, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chen ‘197 and Chen ‘241 such that the focus size of the radiation source(s) is less than or equal to 1 mm.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen ‘197 in view of Chen ‘241, and further in view of Yang et al. (CN 111665270 A).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chen ‘197 and Chen ‘241 teaches the inspection region comprising an entrance and an exit (Chen ‘197 Fig. 2: The source-detector setup bordering the inspection region naturally has a thickness in the conveying direction; labeling the incoming edge as the “entrance” and the outgoing edge as the “exit” is an arbitrary designation applicable to any such conveyor scanning device). The combination of Chen ‘197 and Chen ‘241 does not teach the inspection device further comprising a first transmission mechanism, and the first transmission mechanism is disposed on a side of the entrance of the inspection region and configured to convey the object to be inspected to the inspection region.
In the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches the inspection device further comprising a first transmission mechanism (“clamping drive mechanism” in machine translation), and the first transmission mechanism is disposed on a side of the entrance of the inspection region (Fig. 1: the slide rail component 2, motor 8, and screw 9 of the clamping drive mechanism are located on the side of the body of the device, thus including the entrance side of the inspection region between the X-ray tube 21 and detector 22) and configured to convey the object to be inspected to the inspection region. The transmission mechanism provides the benefit of precisely adjusting the position of the object to be detected along the inspection channel, allowing the object to be scanned at a multitude of positions with little error in the intended position. In light of the teachings of Yang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chen ‘197 and Chen ‘241 to include on the side of the entrance of the inspection region a transmission mechanism configured to convey the object.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, the combination of Chen ‘197 and Chen ‘241 does not teach the first transmission mechanism comprising:
a driving device;
a lead screw connected to the driving device, wherein the lead screw is driven by the driving device;
a first slide rail, wherein an extension direction of the first slide rail is parallel to an extension direction of the lead screw; and
a sliding mechanism connected to the lead screw, wherein the lead screw drives the sliding mechanism to move, so that the sliding mechanism pushes the object to be inspected to slide on the first slide rail.
In the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches the first transmission mechanism comprising:
a driving device (Fig. 2: clamping driving motor 8);
a lead screw connected to the driving device, wherein the lead screw is driven by the driving device (Fig. 2: clamping screw 9, driven to rotate via the motor 8);
a first slide rail (Fig. 2: horizontal guide rail 2), wherein an extension direction of the first slide rail is parallel to an extension direction of the lead screw (Fig. 2: screw and rail extended in same direction); and
a sliding mechanism (Fig. 1: moveable supporting clamp support 6) connected to the lead screw, wherein the lead screw drives the sliding mechanism to move, so that the sliding mechanism pushes the object to be inspected to slide on the first slide rail (This motion is described in the paragraph beginning with “the clamping driving mechanism drives the clamping screw” in the machine translation. The object is clamped to the support via the rods 5 and 7, sliding with it).
This provides the benefit of a simple, adjustable, precise mechanism to transmit the object through the inspection region, allowing the object to be scanned at a multitude of positions with little error. In light of the teachings of Yang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chen ‘197 and Chen ‘241 to include on the side of the entrance of the inspection region a transmission mechanism comprised of a driving device, lead screw, slide rail(s), and a mechanism on the slide rail used to convey the object.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, 15, and 16 contain allowable subject matter if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, the closest prior art, Chen et al. (CN 112903730, hereinafter Chen ‘730), teaches the posture adjustment structure comprising:
a substrate extended in the first direction (Fig. 1: base 22. Note the base can be arbitrarily placed in the inspection region so that the longer end extends in the first direction), wherein the substrate has a carrying surface, and the carrying surface is applicable to place the object to be inspected (Fig. 1: turntable 16 and associated mounting frame 1);
a first adjustment assembly disposed on the substrate and configured to drive the object to be inspected on the carrying surface to deviate around a second direction (Fig. 4: shaft 24 of is rotatable, rotating the turntable and object) and configured to drive the object to be inspected to move in the first direction (Fig. 1: screw 18 and slide rails 20 for moving the object laterally);
at least one second adjustment assembly disposed on the substrate and configured to drive the object to be inspected to rotate around a third direction (Fig. 4: shaft 2 is rotatable, tilting the object),
wherein any two of the first direction, the second direction and the third direction intersect with each other (Fig. 1: according to the mapping of previous limitations, the first direction is the extension direction of the screw/rails, the second direction is upwards, and the third direction is the extension direction of the shaft of the mounting frame. These three directions form perpendicular, intersecting axes).
However, as the “first adjustment assembly” limitation invokes 112(f), the description of the
first adjustment in paragraph [0108] of the applicant’s specification is imported into claim 10:
“The first adjustment assembly includes a chassis that may slide relative to the substrate in the first direction; a lever that may be rotatably disposed on the chassis with the Y-axis as the rotational axis; a knob disposed on the lever, where under a driving of the lever, the knob may be abutted to the object to be inspected to drive the object to be inspected on the carrying surface to deviate around the second direction, and/or to drive the object to be inspected on the carrying surface to move in the first direction.”
The prior art fails to teach or suggest, in combination with other claimed elements, the first adjustment assembly including a lever that may be rotatably disposed on the chassis with the Y-axis as the rotational axis; a knob disposed on the lever, where under a driving of the lever, the knob may be abutted to the object to be inspected to drive the object to be inspected on the carrying surface to deviate around the second direction, and/or to drive the object to be inspected on the carrying surface to move in the first direction.
Claims 11 and 15-16 contain allowable subject matter as being dependent on claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM L TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-8389. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-4pm.
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.
/WILLIAM LAURENCE TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884