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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim 1 – 5 are presented for examination.
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.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirschenman (US 2018/0189944 A1; pub. Jul. 5, 2018) in view of Geib et al. (US 6,171,182 B1; pub. Jan. 9, 2001).
Regarding claim 1, Kirschenman discloses: A radiation inspection system, comprising: a radiation imaging device, which comprises at least one radiation source (fig.1 item 102) and at least one detector module (fig.1 item 104) has a CT inspection mode (para. [0032]) and a DR inspection mode (para. [0032]), and is configured to perform radiation inspection on an object (fig.1 item 104) to be inspected passing through an inspection channel (para. [0036]); a conveying device (para. [0036]), which comprises a conveying device main body (para. [0036]), a motor in drive connection with the conveying device main body to drive the conveying device main body to move along the inspection channel (obvious with teachings of para. [0036]), and a controller in signal connection with the radiation imaging device and the motor, the controller being configured such that when the radiation imaging device is in the CT inspection mode (para. [0032], [0036]).
Roe et al. are silent about: a primary-secondary motor in drive connection with the conveying device main body to drive the conveying device main body to move along the inspection channel, the primary-secondary motor including a main motor, a sub-motor, and a speed reducer; and a controller in signal connection with the radiation imaging device and the primary-secondary motor, the controller being configured such that when the radiation imaging device is in the CT inspection mode, the conveying device main body is in drive connection with the sub-motor through the speed reducer to convey the object to be inspected under the drive of the sub-motor, and in the DR inspection mode, the conveying device main body is in drive connection with the main motor to convey the object to be inspected under the drive of the main motor, wherein a conveying speed when the conveying device main body is in drive connection with the main motor is higher than a conveying speed when the conveying device main body is in drive connection with the sub-motor.
In a similar field of endeavor Geib et al. disclose: a main-auxiliary motor system for conveying coins, wherein the main motor operates on a higher speed while the auxiliary motor operates on a reduced speed (col.18 L12-59) motivated by the benefits for a more efficient conveyance.
In light of the benefits for a more efficient conveyance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the main-auxiliary motor system of Kirschenman in the apparatus of Roe et al. to have: a primary-secondary motor in drive connection with the conveying device main body to drive the conveying device main body to move along the inspection channel, the primary-secondary motor including a main motor, a sub-motor, and a speed reducer; and a controller in signal connection with the radiation imaging device and the primary-secondary motor, the controller being configured such that when the radiation imaging device is in the CT inspection mode, the conveying device main body is in drive connection with the sub-motor through the speed reducer to convey the object to be inspected under the drive of the sub-motor, and in the DR inspection mode, the conveying device main body is in drive connection with the main motor to convey the object to be inspected under the drive of the main motor, wherein a conveying speed when the conveying device main body is in drive connection with the main motor is higher than a conveying speed when the conveying device main body is in drive connection with the sub-motor.
Regarding claim 6, Kirschenman and Geib et al. disclose: the conveying device comprises a self-travelling conveying device, wherein the self-travelling conveying device comprises a driving wheel connected to the conveying device main body, and the primary-secondary motor is in drive connection with the driving wheel (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirschenman (US 2018/0189944 A1; pub. Jul. 5, 2018) in view of Geib et al. (US 6,171,182 B1; pub. Jan. 9, 2001) and further in view of Lemelson (US 7,343,660 B1; pub. Mar. 18, 2008).
Regarding claim 2, Kirschenman and Geib et al. disclose: the controller is configured to receive a working mode signal of the radiation imaging device and generate a control command according to the working mode signal, the working mode signal indicating the radiation imaging device is in the CT inspection mode or the DR inspection mode (see rejection of claim 1).
The combination of Roe et al. and Geib et al. are silent about: the conveying device further comprises a frequency converter and a switching device, wherein the frequency converter is configured to be in signal connection with the controller, to receive the control command and adjust an output parameter according to the control command, and the switching device is electrically connected to the frequency converter and is configured to selectively electrically connect the frequency converter to one of the main motor and the sub-motor.
In a similar field of endeavor Lemelson discloses: the conveying device further comprises a frequency converter and a switching device, wherein the frequency converter is configured to be in signal connection with the controller, to receive the control command and adjust an output parameter according to the control command, and the switching device is electrically connected to the frequency converter and is configured to selectively electrically connect the frequency converter to one of the main motor and the sub-motor (col.3 L25-33, col.4 L22-35, col.18 L57-67) motivated by the benefits for improved automation (Lemelson col.2 L4-20).
In light of the benefits for improved automation as taught by Lemelson, 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 apparatus of Kirschenman and Geib et al. with the teachings of Lemelson.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirschenman (US 2018/0189944 A1; pub. Jul. 5, 2018) in view of Geib et al. (US 6,171,182 B1; pub. Jan. 9, 2001) and further in view of Bernardi et al. (US 6,553,094 B1; pub. Apr. 22, 2003).
Regarding claim 3, the combined references are silent about: a mode detecting device, wherein the mode detecting device is in signal connection with the radiation imaging device and the controller, and the mode detecting device is configured to monitor working parameters of the radiation imaging device and transmit the working parameters as a working mode signal to the controller.
In a similar field of endeavor Bernardi et al. disclose: a mode detecting device, wherein the mode detecting device is in signal connection with the radiation imaging device and the controller, and the mode detecting device is configured to monitor working parameters of the radiation imaging device and transmit the working parameters as a working mode signal to the controller (Abstract, col.2 L1-10) motivated by the benefits for improved inspection accuracy.
In light of the benefits for improved inspection accuracy, 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 apparatus of Kirschenman and Geib et al. with the teachings of Bernardi et al.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirschenman (US 2018/0189944 A1; pub. Jul. 5, 2018) in view of Geib et al. (US 6,171,182 B1; pub. Jan. 9, 2001) and further in view of Wu et al. (WO2014015490 A1; pub. Jan. 30, 2014).
Regarding claim 4, the combined references are silent about: the radiation imaging device comprises: a CT imaging part, which comprises a first radiation source and a first detector module disposed corresponding to the first radiation source; and a DR imaging part, which comprises a second radiation source and a second detector module disposed corresponding to the second radiation source.
In a similar field of endeavor Wu et al. disclose: the radiation imaging device comprises: a CT imaging part, which comprises a first radiation source and a first detector module disposed corresponding to the first radiation source; and a DR imaging part, which comprises a second radiation source and a second detector module disposed corresponding to the second radiation source (para. [0011], [0020]) motivated by the benefits for high detection resolution, high detection sensitivity, strong radiation penetration capability and good long-term stability (Wu et al. para. [0010]).
In light of the benefits for high detection resolution, high detection sensitivity, strong radiation penetration capability and good long-term stability as taught by Wu et al., 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 apparatus of Kirschenman and Geib et al. with the teachings of Wu et al.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kirschenman, Geib et al. and Wu et al. disclose: the radiation imaging device comprises one radiation source and one detector module corresponding to the radiation source, and the radiation source and the detector module switch between the DR inspection mode and the CT inspection mode (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 4).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirschenman (US 2018/0189944 A1; pub. Jul. 5, 2018) in view of Geib et al. (US 6,171,182 B1; pub. Jan. 9, 2001) and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0292110 A1; pub. Sep. 23, 2021).
Regarding claim 7, the combined references are silent about: a track, and the driving wheel is located on the track; and the conveying device further comprises a limiting wheel, the limiting wheel cooperates with a lateral side of the track.
In a similar field of endeavor Wang et al. disclose: a track, and the driving wheel is located on the track; and the conveying device further comprises a limiting wheel, the limiting wheel cooperates with a lateral side of the track (para. [0410], [0412], [0419]) motivated by the benefits for improving the loading and unloading efficiency (Wang et al. para. [0254]).
In light of the benefits for improving the loading and unloading efficiency as taught by Wang et al., 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 apparatus of Kirschenman and Geib et al. with the teachings of Wang et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the primary-secondary motor further comprises a first connecting part and a second connecting part, wherein the first connecting part and the second connecting part each comprises two transmission parts having an axially connected state and an axially separated state, respectively; the speed reducer has an input shaft and an output shaft; the main motor is connected to the output shaft via the first connecting part; the sub-motor is connected to the input shaft via the second connecting part; and the primary-secondary motor is in drive connection with the conveying device main body by means of the main motor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884