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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the Office action dated on 01/08/2026 the amendment has been received on 04/08/2026. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended. Claims 16-19 have been newly added. Claims 1-19 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-11, filed on 04/08/2026, with respect to the claims 1-15 have been fully considered and are to a certain degree persuasive. The independent claims 1 and 8 have been amended by adding the new limitations wherein “the digital radiographic detector comprising a two-dimensional array of photosensor cells formed in a layer of amorphous silicon” in order to overcome the rejections provided in the previous Office action. Therefore, the previous rejections of claims 1-15 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made with the previously provided prior art in view of Wojcik et al. (US PAP 2020/0121270 A1; see Fig.2; paragraph 0037) clearly teaching a digital radiographic detector comprising a two-dimensional array of photosensor cells formed in a layer of amorphous silicon for generating a high-resolution radiographic image.
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.
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 1-7, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratner et al. (US PAP 2020/0013145 A1) in view of Wojcik et al. (US PAP 2020/0121270 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Ratner et al. teaches a method for generating a high-resolution radiographic image of an object (200), the method comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29):
capturing a first radiographic image of the object using an x-ray source (101) and a digital radiographic detector (500) (see Fig. 1A); displacing at least one of the object (200) and the detector (500) a non-integer number of the detector’s interpixel distance (see paragraphs 0045—0051); capturing a second radiographic image of the object (200) using the at least one displaced object (200) and digital radiographic detector (500); and combining the first radiographic image of the object and the second radiographic image of the object
PNG
media_image1.png
721
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see Fig. 1A; paragraphs 0046-0052 and 0062-0073) but fails to explicitly mention that the digital radiographic detector comprising a two-dimensional array of photosensor cells formed in a layer of amorphous silicon.
Wojcik et al. discloses a method and apparatus for generating a high-resolution image of an object/subject (see abstract; Figs. 1-14B; paragraph 0037), which explicitly teaches
PNG
media_image2.png
338
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
344
368
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a digital radiographic detector (12) comprising a two-dimensional array of photosensor cells (270) formed in a layer of amorphous silicon for generating a high-resolution radiographic image (see Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph 0037).
Ratner et al. and Wojcik et al. disclose related methods and apparatuses for generating a high-resolution image of an object/subject.
It 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 to provide teachings of the digital radiographic detector comprising a two-dimensional array of photosensor cells formed in a layer of amorphous silicon as suggested by Wojcik et al. in the method of Ratner er al., since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to provide high-resolution radiographic image by enhancing image with improved sharpness, resolution, and/or reduced blur.
It would have been obvious to treat Ratner et al. and Wojcik et al. as related art whereby an improvement on one of the systems/methods would readily be apparent as an improvement on either of the systems.
The Examiner’s conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious is based on the fact that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
With respect to claim 2, Ratner et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) as modified by Wojcik et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-14B; paragraph 0037) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of displacing includes displacing in one or more directions in an x-y plane that is generally perpendicular to X-rays emitted by the x-ray source toward the detector (500) (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29).
With respect to claim 3, Ratner et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) as modified by Wojcik et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-14B; paragraph 0037) teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the step of displacing includes displacing at least one of the object (200) and the detector (500) at a distance fess than the interpixel distance (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29).
With respect to claim 4, Ratner et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) as modified by Wojcik et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-14B; paragraph 0037) teaches the method of claim 3 but fail to explicitly mention that the step of displacing includes displacing at least one of the objects and the detector at a distance less than about 60 µm.
However, it 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 to provide the step of displacing at least one of the object and the detector at a distance less than about 60 µm in the method of Ratner et al. as modified by Wojcik et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, disclosing optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 5, Ratner et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) as modified by Wojcik et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-14B; paragraph 0037) teaches the method of claim 3 but fail to explicitly mention that the step of displacing includes displacing at least one of the object and the detector at a distance less than about 30 µm.
However, it 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 to provide the step of displacing at least one of the object and the detector at a distance less than about 30 µm in the method of Ratner et al. as modified by Wojcik et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, disclosing optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 6, Ratner et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) as modified by Wojcik et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-14B; paragraph 0037) teaches the method of claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) fail to explicitly mention the step of displacing with a serial radiography procedure that captures radiographic images of the object at a rate of at least eight frames per second.
However, it 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 to provide the step of displacing with a serial radiography procedure that captures radiographic images of the object at a rate of at least eight frames per second in the method of Ratner et al. as modified by Wojcik et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, disclosing optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 7, Ratner et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) as modified by Wojcik et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-14B; paragraph 0037) teaches the method of claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29), further comprising retrieving the non-integer number of the detector’s interpixel distance from an electronic memory in the detector (500) (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29).
With respect to claim 16, Ratner et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) as modified by Wojcik et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-14B; paragraph 0037) teaches the method of claim 3 but fail to explicitly mention that the step of displacing includes rotating a threaded rod having at least one hundred threads per inch.
It 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 to provide the step of displacing includes rotating a threaded rod having at least one hundred threads per inch
in the method of Ratner et al. as modified by Wojcik et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, disclosing optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 17, Ratner et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) as modified by Wojcik et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-14B; paragraph 0037) teaches the method of claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) fail to explicitly mention that the step of displacing includes bending a noncompressible flexible strip by pushing together opposite ends of the noncompressible flexible strip.
It 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 to provide the step of displacing includes bending a noncompressible flexible strip by pushing together opposite ends of the noncompressible flexible strip in the method of Ratner et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, the provision of adjustability, where needed, while providing a mechanical or automatic means for displacement, without producing any newly and unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 8-15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratner et al. (US PAP 2020/0013145 A1) in view of Ng et al. (US PAP 2021/0088804 A1) and Wojcik et al. (US PAP 2020/0121270 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Ratner et al. teaches a portable radiographic detector assembly for holding and displacing a digital radiographic detector, the assembly comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) a moveable frame having an opening to receive and secure the digital radiographic detector (500) and controllable to displace the digital radiographic detector (500) at a distance of a non-integer number of the detector’s interpixel distance (see Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073) but fail to explicitly mention that micromechanical devices attached to the frame for displacing the frame and the digital radiographic detector; wherein the digital radiographic detector comprising a two-dimensional array of photosensor cells formed in a layer of amorphous silicon for generating a high-resolution radiographic image.
Ng et al. discloses a system/method comprising the micromechanical devices controllable to displace the digital image sensor/detector (see abstract; Figs. 1-18; paragraphs 0034 and 0096)
PNG
media_image4.png
751
486
media_image4.png
Greyscale
which explicitly teaches micromechanical devices such as multi-axis micro-electrical-mechanical system (MEMS) assembly attached to the frame for displacing the frame and the digital detector providing user with the capabilities to controllable displace the digital image sensor/detector for X-axis, Y-axis and Z-axis as needed. In addition, they are more compact than conventional actuators, and consume less power (see abstract; Figs. 1-18; paragraphs 0004-0006 0034 and 0096).
Ratner et al. and Ng et al. disclose related apparatuses for displacing detectors.
It 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 to provide teachings of the micromechanical devices such as multi-axis micro-electrical-mechanical system (MEMS) assembly attached to the frame for displacing the frame and the digital detector as suggested by Ng et al. in the apparatus of Ratner er al., since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to controllable displace the digital image sensor/detector for X-axis, Y-axis and Z-axis as needed. In addition, they are more compact than conventional actuators, and consume less power.
Wojcik et al. discloses a method and apparatus for generating a high-resolution image of an object/subject (see abstract; Figs. 1-14B; paragraph 0037), which explicitly teaches
PNG
media_image2.png
338
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
344
368
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a digital radiographic detector (12) comprising a two-dimensional array of photosensor cells (270) formed in a layer of amorphous silicon for generating a high-resolution radiographic image (see Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph 0037).
Ratner et al., Ng et al. and Wojcik et al. disclose related methods and apparatuses for generating a high-resolution image of an object/subject.
It 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 to provide teachings of the digital radiographic detector comprising a two-dimensional array of photosensor cells formed in a layer of amorphous silicon as suggested by Wojcik et al. in the apparatus of Ratner er al. as modified by Ng et al., since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to provide high-resolution radiographic image by enhancing image with improved sharpness, resolution, and/or reduced blur.
It would have been obvious to treat Ratner et al., Ng et al. and Wojcik et al. as related art whereby an improvement on one of the systems/methods would readily be apparent as an improvement on either of the systems.
The Examiner’s conclusion that claim 8 would have been obvious is based on the fact that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
With respect to claim 9, Ratner et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) as modified by Ng et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-18; paragraphs 0034 and 0096) and Wojcik et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-14B; paragraph 0037) teaches the detector assembly of claim 8, wherein the micromechanical devices are controllable to displace the digital detector less than an interpixel distance of the detector (500) (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073).
With respect to claim 10, Ratner et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) as modified by Ng et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-18; paragraphs 0034 and 0096) and Wojcik et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-14B; paragraph 0037) teaches the detector assembly of claim 9, with the detector assembly (500) comprises a housing and wherein NG et al. further teaching that the micromechanical devices are further attached to the housing, and wherein the frame is configured to be displaced relative to the housing (see abstract; Figs. 1-18; paragraphs 0034 and 0096) since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to controllable displace the digital image sensor/detector for X-axis, Y-axis and Z-axis as needed.
It 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 to employ such a modification in the apparatus of Ratner et al. in view of Ng et al., since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 11, Ratner et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) as modified by Ng et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-18; paragraphs 0034 and 0096) and Wojcik et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-14B; paragraph 0037) teaches the detector assembly of claim 8, wherein the detector assembly (500) includes a wireless data transmission/receiving device (see paragraph 0019 referencing U.S. Patent 9,129,715) to receive displacement instructions for displacing the frame for a selected distance corresponding to the displacement instructions (see paragraphs 0019, 0022, 0038, 0042, 0043, 0051 and 0061).
With respect to claim 12, Ratner et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) as modified by Ng et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-18; paragraphs 0034 and 0096) and Wojcik et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-14B; paragraph 0037) teaches the detector assembly of claim 8, wherein the detector assembly includes electronic memory (see paragraph 0019 referencing U.S. Patent 9,129,715) for storing the non-integer number of the detector's interpixel distance (see paragraphs 0019, 0022, 0038, 0042, 0043, 0051 and 0061).
With respect to claim 13, Ratner et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) as modified by Ng et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-18; paragraphs 0034 and 0096) and Wojcik et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-14B; paragraph 0037) teaches the detector assembly of claim 8, wherein ng et al. clearly further that the micromechanical devices each comprises a rotatable threaded rod housing (see abstract; Figs. 1-18; paragraphs 0034 and 0096) since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to controllable displace the digital image sensor/detector for X-axis, Y-axis and Z-axis as needed.
It 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 to employ such a modification in the apparatus of Ratner et al. in view of Ng et al., since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 14, Ratner et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) as modified by Ng et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-18; paragraphs 0034 and 0096) and Wojcik et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-14B; paragraph 0037) teaches the detector assembly of claim 8, further comprising a processing system for synchronizing the displacement of the digital detector by the micromechanical devices with each image capture during a serial radiography procedure (see paragraphs 0019, 0022, 0038, 0042, 0043, 0051 and 0061).
With respect to claim 15, Ratner et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) as modified by Ng et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-18; paragraphs 0034 and 0096) and Wojcik et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-14B; paragraph 0037) teaches the detector assembly of claim 8, wherein Ng et al. teaches that the micromechanical devices are configurable to displace the digital radiographic detector in each of two perpendicular directions housing (see abstract; Figs. 1-18; paragraphs 0034 and 0096) since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to controllable displace the digital image sensor/detector for X-axis, Y-axis and Z-axis as needed.
It 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 to employ such a modification in the apparatus of Ratner et al. in view of Ng et al., since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 18, Ratner et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) as modified by Ng et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-18; paragraphs 0034 and 0096) and Wojcik et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-14B; paragraph 0037) teaches the detector assembly of claim 13 but fails to explicitly mention that the threaded rod is configured with at least one hundred threads per inch.
It 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 to provide the threaded rod that is configured with at least one hundred threads per inch in the method of Ratner et al. as modified by Wojcik et al. as modified by Ng et al. and Wojcik et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, disclosing optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 19, Ratner et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) as modified by Wojcik et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-14B; paragraph 0037) teaches the method of claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1A-11; paragraphs 0019-0022, 0025-0031, 0034-0053 and 0057-0073; claims 1-3, 14-18 and 29) fail to explicitly mention that the micromechanical devices each comprise a noncompressible flexible strip configured to bend and travel in a desired direction when opposite ends of the flexible strip are pushed together.
It 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 to provide the teachings that the micromechanical devices each comprise a noncompressible flexible strip configured to bend and travel in a desired direction when opposite ends of the flexible strip are pushed together in the method of Ratner et al. as modified by Ng et al. and Wojcik et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, the provision of adjustability, where needed, while providing a mechanical or automatic means for displacement, without producing any newly and unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 IRAKLI KIKNADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6494. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 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.
Irakli Kiknadze
/IRAKLI KIKNADZE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/I.K./ June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights