DETAILED ACTION
National Stage Application
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 .
Specification
The substitute specification filed 31 May 2024 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: the statement as to a lack of new matter under 37 CFR 1.125(b) is missing.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2, 7, and 8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(a) in claim 2, “the detector module” on the last line should probably be --the detector modules--;
(b) in claim 7, “the detector module” on the last line should probably be --the detector modules--;
(c) in claim 8, “the detector module” on line 3 should probably be --the detector modules--; and
(d) in claim 8, “the detector module” on the last line should probably be --the detector modules--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”). Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… support frame 6 includes but is not limited to a doorshaped frame. The door-shaped frame includes two parallel side surfaces spaced apart and a top surface provided on the two side surfaces, with the bottom of the two side surfaces provided on a working surface …” in paragraph 37) serves as a glossary for the claim term “support frame”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-9 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seppi et al. (US 2004/0017888).
In regard to claim 1, Seppi et al. disclose a security inspection device, comprising:
(a) a support frame, defining an inspection channel extending in a first direction (e.g., “… In FIG. 1, a truck 12 carrying a cargo container 14 is shown moving through the scanning unit 10, out of the page, along a first path. In FIG. 2, the direction of the first path is indicated by arrow "A" … rail 18 and the detector array 20 lie along the same plane "P", identified in FIG. 2, to detect radiation emitted by the sources 16a-16f after passing through the cargo container …” in paragraphs 38 and 39);
(b) a first X-ray accelerator provided at a position of a top portion of the support frame and the position is offset from a centerline of the inspection channel, wherein the first X-ray accelerator is configured to radiate a first X-ray downwards towards the inspection channel to inspect an object to be inspected passing through the inspection channel (e.g., see “16b” in Fig. 1 and “… X-ray source 16 may be a linear accelerator, such as a Linatron® Linear Accelerator If Varian Linatrons® are used as the sources 16 in the configuration of FIG. 1, six sources may be provided, equidistantly spaced on the semi-circular rail 18 …” in paragraphs 49 and 50);
(c) a second X-ray accelerator configured to radiate a second X-ray to the inspection channel to inspect the object to be inspected passing through the inspection channel (e.g., see “16a” in Fig. 1 and “… X-ray source 16 may be a linear accelerator, such as a Linatron® Linear Accelerator If Varian Linatrons® are used as the sources 16 in the configuration of FIG. 1, six sources may be provided, equidistantly spaced on the semi-circular rail 18 …” in paragraphs 49 and 50); and
(d) a detector apparatus comprising a plurality of detector modules provided on the support frame and facing the first X-ray accelerator and the second X-ray accelerator, wherein the plurality of detector modules are configured to receive at least a part of the first X-ray and/or the second X-ray to form a transmission image of the object to be inspected (e.g., “… rail 18 and the detector array 20 lie along the same plane "P", identified in FIG. 2, to detect radiation emitted by the sources 16a-16f after passing through the cargo container … detector array 20 is electrically connected to a processor 26, such as a computer, which reconstructs the data output by the detector array 20 into images …” in paragraphs 39 and 46),
wherein the first X-ray, the second X-ray, and a central plane formed by the plurality of detector modules are constructed to be located in the same plane (e.g., “… rail 18 and the detector array 20 lie along the same plane "P", identified in FIG. 2, to detect radiation emitted by the sources 16a-16f after passing through the cargo container …” in paragraph 39).
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1, Seppi et al. also disclose that the detector apparatus further comprises a signal acquisition module, the signal acquisition module is electrically connected to the first X-ray accelerator, the second X-ray accelerator, and the plurality of detector modules, and the signal acquisition module is configured to mark signals generated by the first X-ray and the second X-ray and received by the detector modules (e.g., “… detector array 20 is electrically connected to a processor 26, such as a computer, which reconstructs the data output by the detector array 20 into images, as discussed further below. Analog-to-digital converting devices and other electronic components are provided as required … computer 26 is also connected to the X-ray sources 16 to control their operation … To simplify analysis of detected signals and reconstruction of images, in one embodiment, only the sources 16a-16f that project X-ray beams that do not overlap on the same detector 21 of the detector array 20 are on at the same time …” in paragraphs 46 and 57).
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 1, Seppi et al. also disclose that the plurality of detector modules are tiled and constructed into a row, a column, or an array, wherein tiling the plurality of detector modules represents that receiving ends of detector modules in each row, column, or array are located in the same plane (e.g., “… When the X-ray radiation is in the form of a cone beam, the detector array 20 may comprise one or more rows of two dimensional detector modules to detect X-ray transmission through the cargo container 14 …” in paragraph 54).
In regard to claim 7, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 1 above. Seppi et al. disclose a security inspection method, applied to the security inspection device, comprising:
(a) sequentially radiating the first X-ray and the second X-ray to the inspection channel at an interval, respectively, by the first X-ray accelerator and the second X-ray accelerator (e.g., “… only one of the sources 16a-16f may be on at a time …” in paragraph 57); and
(b) collecting the first X-ray and the second X-ray and generating data packets respectively, by the detector module (e.g., “… Data from detector modules 21 that are not aligned with a source which is on may be rejected …” in paragraph 57).
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 7, Seppi et al. also disclose that the collecting the first X-ray and the second X-ray and generating data packets respectively, by the detector modules comprises: outputting a synchronization pulse signal and/or an image marking signal to the detector module, by the first X-ray accelerator and the second X-ray accelerator, while radiating the first X-ray and the second X-ray to the inspection channel (e.g., “… emissions of each source 16 are synchronized with the detector or detectors of the detector array 20 that each source illuminates, by the computer 26 …” in paragraph 50); collecting the first X-ray and the second X-ray based on the synchronization pulse signal and marking the collected data packets as a first data packet and a second data packet based on the image marking signal, by the detector modules (e.g., “… Data from detector modules 21 that are not aligned with a source which is on may be rejected …” in paragraph 57).
In regard to claim 9 which is dependent on claim 8, Seppi et al. also disclose stitching data in each data packet based on the first data packet and the second data packet, so as to generate a first transmission image and a second transmission image, respectively (e.g., “… scanning unit 10 may be used to obtain radiographic images or computed tomography ("CT") images …” in paragraph 55).
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Seppi et al. (US 2004/0017888).
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 1, Seppi et al. also disclose that a part of the plurality of detector modules are respectively constructed as a side array and a bottom array, wherein the side array is provided on an inner side surface of the support frame, the bottom array is provided on an inner bottom surface of the support frame, and a beam divergence angle of the first X-ray covers the side array and the bottom array (e.g., “… six sources may be provided, equidistantly spaced on the semi-circular rail 18, to illuminate a pie-shaped region of about 120 degrees of the cargo container 14 … sources may emit radiation at angles up to about 180 degrees …” in paragraph 50). Alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a beam divergence angle of the first X ray of “about 180 degrees” covers the side array and the bottom array.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seppi et al. (US 2004/0017888) in view of Bermbach et al. (US 5,065,418).
In regard to claims 5 and 6 which are dependent on claim 4, while Seppi et al. also disclose (paragraph 62) that “… Alternative configurations are possible …”, the system of Seppi et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… Alternative configurations …” such as the other part of the plurality of detector modules are constructed as a top array, wherein the top array is provided on an inner top surface of the support frame, and a beam divergence angle of the second X-ray covers the side array and the top array, and wherein the beam divergence angle of the second X-ray further covers a part of the bottom array. However, “… configurations …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… radiation generator emits a substantially planar fan beam 11 perpendicular to the conveying direction of the conveyor 4. The fan beam 11 has a central ray 12 which is vertically aligned so that radiation from the radiation generator 8 is incident on a U-shaped radiation detector 13. A second radiation generator 14 is also provided. The radiation generator 14 generates a substantially planar fan beam 15, which is also perpendicular to the conveying direction of the conveyor 4. A central ray 16 of the fan beam 15 has an angle to a horizontal-plane, so that the radiation emitted by the radiation generator 14 is incident on a L-shaped radiation detector 17 … fan beam 11 completely penetrates the cross-section of the container or vehicle 5 proceeding from above, and is incident on the U-shaped radiation detector 13. The fan angle 19 of the fan beam 15 is also wide enough so that the radiation 10 from the radiation generator 14 completely penetrates the cross section of the container or vehicle 5 from the side, so that the radiation is incident on the L-shaped radiation detector 17 …” in the seventh and eighth column 2 paragraphs and the second column 3 paragraph of Bermbach et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional configuration (e.g., comprising details such as “L-shaped radiation detector” and “U-shaped radiation detector”, in order for radiation to “completely penetrates the cross section of the container or vehicle 5” “from above” and “from the side”) for the unspecified configuration of Seppi et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional configuration (e.g., comprising details such as the other part of the plurality of detector modules are constructed as a top array, wherein the top array is provided on an inner top surface of the support frame, and a beam divergence angle of the second X-ray covers the side array and the top array, and wherein the beam divergence angle of the second X-ray further covers a part of the bottom array) as the unspecified configuration of Seppi et al.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seppi et al. (US 2004/0017888) in view of Cao et al. (US 2017/0090062).
In regard to claim 10, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 1 above. While Seppi et al. also disclose a security inspection system comprising the security inspection device applied to detect a moving vehicle having a contour and a speed, wherein the moving vehicle comprises a carriage and a cab having a size (e.g., see “… inspecting objects … objects can be small objects, such as luggage and bags, or large objects, such as cargo containers … In FIG. 1, a truck 12 carrying a cargo container 14 is shown moving through the scanning unit 10, out of the page, along a first path …” in Fig. 2 and paragraph 38), the system of Seppi et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… inspecting objects …” such as a speed detection device upstream of the security inspection device, wherein the speed detection device comprises first and second detection apparatus spaced apart by a distance and is configured to: obtain the contour when the vehicle passes through the second detection apparatus, detect when the carriage leaves the second detection apparatus, measure the speed by dividing the distance by a time interval for passing through the first and second detection apparatus, determine the size using the speed, determine the cab’s position in the inspection channel, and determine beam emission times for the first and second X-ray accelerators, so that beams are emitted separately after the cab pass through the first and second X-ray accelerators. However, “… inspecting objects …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… sensor units (110, 121, 122, 150, 160) cooperate with the control module 500, in controlling the working mode of the radiation source 210 as well as the time for starting and stopping emitting the rays. Specifically, the sensor units (110, 121, 122, 150, 160) detect whether the moving object arrives (when it reaches the position where the sensor unit is located, the sensor unit is triggered) and detect whether the moving object leaves (when it leaves the position where the sensor unit is located, the sensor unit returns to its un-triggered state). The sensor units (110, 121, 122, 150, 160) may be a photoelectric sensor (such as a photoelectric switch, a light screen switch), a metal sensor (such as a ground sensing coil), a pressure sensor (such as an axle load sensor), etc., or may be a combination of these sensors. The sensor units (110, 121, 122, 150, 160) may be arranged above the ground of the passage, or may be arranged below the ground of the passage, for identifying different types of moving objects (such as a cargo truck having a relatively large profile dimension or a car having a relatively small profile dimension) and different portions of the moving object (such as the driving cab and the cargo carriage of the cargo vehicle). Different types of sensors may be used for detecting the parameters of the object, such as the moving speed … two sensors may be arranged upstream of the scanning region. Based on a time difference between time points at which these two sensors are triggered by the moving object, respectively, as well as a distance between these two sensors, a running speed of the moving object can be obtained. Then, based on the information such as the position of the moving object, the length of the driving cab, etc., the time necessary for the driving cab and the cargo carriage of the moving object to reach the scanning region may be calculated, respectively, and thus the time points at which the driving cab and the cargo carriage reach the scanning region can be determined and the radiation source can be activated to work at a proper working mode, i.e., emitting rays in low dose rate when the driving cab reaches the scanning region and emitting rays in high dose rate when the cargo carriage reaches the scanning region. In addition, based on the time points at which the moving object reaches or leaves different sensors, as well as the distance between different sensors, a speed of the moving object at different positions can be calculated …” in paragraphs 30, 31, and 36 of Cao et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional object inspection (e.g., comprising details such as “two sensors may be arranged upstream of the scanning region. Based on a time difference between time points at which these two sensors are triggered by the moving object, respectively, as well as a distance between these two sensors, a running speed of the moving object can be obtained. Then, based on the information such as the position of the moving object, the length of the driving cab, etc., the time necessary for the driving cab and the cargo carriage of the moving object to reach the scanning region may be calculated, respectively, and thus the time points at which the driving cab and the cargo carriage reach the scanning region can be determined”, in order the “radiation source can be activated to work at a proper working mode, i.e., emitting rays in low dose rate when the driving cab reaches the scanning region and emitting rays in high dose rate when the cargo carriage reaches the scanning region”) for the unspecified object inspection of Seppi et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional object inspection (e.g., comprising details such as a speed detection device configured to detect a speed of the vehicle, wherein the speed detection device comprises: a first detection apparatus on an upstream of the security inspection device; and a second detection apparatus on the upstream of the security inspection device and is spaced apart from the first detection apparatus, wherein the first detection apparatus and the second detection apparatus are configured to: obtain a contour of the vehicle when the vehicle passes through the second detection apparatus, detect when a carriage of the vehicle leaves the second detection apparatus, measure the speed of the vehicle by dividing a distance between the second detection apparatus and the first detection apparatus by a time interval between the vehicle passing through the second detection apparatus and the first detection apparatus, determine a size of a cab of the vehicle using the measured speed of the vehicle, determine a position of the cab of the moving vehicle in the inspection channel, and determine a time for the first X-ray accelerator to emit beam and a time for the second X-ray accelerator to emit beam, so that beams are emitted separately after the cab passing through the first X-ray accelerator and the second X-ray accelerator) as the unspecified object inspection of Seppi et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150185166 teaches X-ray inspection.
US 20170122884 teaches X-ray inspection.
US 20170276619 teaches X-ray inspection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884