DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 11, and 13 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 11, the term “several” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “several” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim fails to define what the several K-alpha type filters are. The specification fails to define which K-alpha type filters are or are not included in the “several K-alpha type filters”. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “K-alpha type filters”.
Regarding claim 13, the term “several” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “several” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim fails to define what the several different energy levels are. The specification fails to define which energy levels are or are not included in the “several different energy levels”. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “different energy levels”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Provinciali (“Modelling of Phase Contrast Imaging with X-ray Wavefront Sensor and Partial Coherence Beams”).
.
Regarding claim 1:
Provinciali discloses A phase-contrast imaging method for estimating local stoichiometry of a sample by determining a parameter δ of a real part and an imaginary part β of a complex optical index of the sample; the method is implemented using an X-ray source for illuminating the sample disposed between the source and a detector, a grid consisting of holes disposed between the sample and the detector, and a unit for processing signals from the detector; the method comprising the following steps of:
- carrying out at least one measurement by illuminating the sample (Pg. 3, section 2.1, radiation emitter ), the X-rays reaching the detector forming a spot for each hole of the grid (Fig. 6)
- for each measurement and for each hole of the grid, independently analysing the spot formed on the grid by determining a barycentre of the spot using a centroid search technique (Fig. 7, each hole of the mask is analyzed based on the center portion of the mask)
- determining an offset of the centroid from a reference centroid and then determining a local phase variation from the offset of the centroid (Section 3.2, cross-talk between adjacent holes)
- determining an amplitude of the X-rays forming the spot (section 3.1, amplitude), and then determining a local attenuation relative to a reference amplitude (Fig. 4, intensity map)
- determining the parameter δ from the local phase variation (Section. 3.1, δ determination); and
- determining the imaginary part β from the local attenuation (Section. 3.1, β determination).
Regarding claim 2:
Provinciali discloses the method according to claim 1, characterised in that the reference barycentre is obtained during a measurement by illuminating the detector through the grid, without the sample or in the presence of a reference sample (Section 2.1, illumination).
Regarding claim 3:
Provinciali discloses the method according to claim 1, characterised in that the reference amplitude is obtained during a measurement by illuminating the detector through the grid, without the sample or in the presence of a reference sample (Section 2.1, illumination).
Regarding claim 4:
Provinciali discloses the method according to claim 1, characterised in that the grid consists of regularly (Fig. 6, mask has regularly spaced holes) or irregularly spaced holes.
Regarding claim 5:
Provinciali discloses the method according to claim 1, characterised in that the hole pitch of the grid is greater than or equal to the size of a pixel of the detector (Section 3.3 pitch is comparable to aperture size of the detector).
Regarding claim 6:
Provinciali discloses the method according to claim 1, characterised in that the hole size of the grid is greater than or equal to the width of a pixel of the detector (Section 3.3, same size).
Regarding claim 7:
Provinciali discloses the method according to claim 1, characterised in that the dimensions of the grid and the distance between the source, the grid and the detector are determined so that the spot for each hole covers several pixels of the detector (Section 3.3, distance and dimensions are chosen).
Regarding claim 17:
Provinciali discloses an X-ray radiography system (Section 1, X-ray systems) for implementing the method according to claim 1 (as rejected above).
Regarding claim 18:
Provinciali discloses an X-ray tomography system (Section 1, X-ray systems) for implementing the method according to claim 1 ( as rejected above).
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 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provinciali (“Modelling of Phase Contrast Imaging with X-ray Wavefront Sensor and Partial Coherence Beams”) in view of Pavlo (EP 2934320).
Regarding claim 10:
Provinciali discloses the method according to claim 1.
However, Provinciali fails to disclose X-ray source is a multi-energy source.
Pavlo teaches X-ray source is a multi-energy source ([0024], polychromatic X-ray).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Provinciali with the source of Pavlo. One would have been motivated to make such combination in order to improve accuracy of the results by imaging using multiple different energies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Provinciali with the source of Pavlo to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood:
The combination of Provincali and Pavlo discloses the method according to claim 10, characterised in that the multi-energy source comprises an anode associated with K-alpha type filters (Pavlo; [0023]-[0024], filters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Provinciali with the filters of Pavlo. One would have been motivated to make such combination in order to improve accuracy of the results by imaging using multiple different energies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Provinciali with the filters of Pavlo to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Provincali and Pavlo discloses the method according to claim 10, characterised in that the multi-energy source (Pavlo; Fig. 2) comprises an X-ray emitter (Pavlo; Fig. 2, X-ray tube) and a plurality of filters (Pavlo; [0023]) external to the X-ray emitter (Pavlo; Fig. 2, filter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Provinciali with the source of Pavlo. One would have been motivated to make such combination in order to improve accuracy of the results by imaging using multiple different energies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Provinciali with the source of Pavlo to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood:
Provincali discloses the method according to claim 1.
However, Provinciali fails to disclose characterised in that in order to obtain several different energy levels, the detector is a photon counting detector.
Pavlo teaches in that in order to obtain different energy levels (Pavlo; [0037]-[0039]), the detector is a photon counting detector (Pavlo; [0037]-[0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Provinciali with the detector of Pavlo. One would have been motivated to make such combination in order to improve accuracy of the results by imaging using multiple different energies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Provinciali with the detector of Pavlo to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 14:
Provincali discloses the method according to claim 1.
However, Provinciali fails to disclose characterised by, for a non-pure sample, carrying out a plurality of measurements at different energy levels.
Pavlo teaches characterised by, for a non-pure sample ([0018], object), carrying out a plurality of measurements at different energy levels ([0098], two different energy levels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Provinciali with the source of Pavlo. One would have been motivated to make such combination in order to improve accuracy of the results by imaging using multiple different energies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Provinciali with the source of Pavlo to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, and 15-16 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior arts are Provinciali (“Modelling of Phase Contrast Imaging with X-ray Wavefront Sensor and Partial Coherence Beams”) and Pavlo (EP 2934320).
Regarding claim 8:
Provinciali discloses the method according to claim 1.
However, Provinciali fails to disclose characterised in that the parameter δ is determined using the following equation:
∆
φ
=
∫
δ
x
l
d
l
Δφ being the local phase variation and ‘l’ the distance travelled by the X-ray.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Regarding claim 9:
Provinciali discloses the method according to claim 1.
However, Provinciali fails to disclose characterised in that the imaginary part β is determined using the following equation:
I
I
0
=
exp
-
∫
4
π
β
λ
d
l
where I/I0 being the attenuation, λ being the wavelength of the X-ray and ‘l’ the distance travelled by the X-ray.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Provincali and Pavlo discloses the method according to claim 14.
However, the combination of Provincali and Pavlo fails to disclose characterised in that 2i measurements are carried out at different energies, 'i' being the total number of chemical elements contained in the sample.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of Provincali and Pavlo discloses the method according to claim 14.
However, the combination of Provincali and Pavlo fails to disclose characterised in that when the materials making up the sample are known, i/2 measurements are carried out at different energies, 'i' being the total number of chemical elements contained in the sample.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884