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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (US 2014/0286813; hereinafter Guo) in view of Lakshminarayan et al (US 5749041; hereinafter Lakshminarayan).
Regarding claim 1, Guo discloses an imaging system (fig. 6), comprising: an additively manufactured (abstract; par. 23) three-dimensional (3D) collimator manufactured out of one or more materials, the one or more materials comprise a metal (pars. 2 and 32), and the additively manufactured (3D) collimator is configured to provide collimation on a beam emitted from an X-ray source of the imaging system (fig. 6; par. 32); and a coating disposed over surfaces (par. 35) of the additively manufactured 3D collimator, wherein the coating is configured with the additively manufactured 3D collimator (par. 32: due to the treatment process).
However, Guo fails to disclose wherein the coating is configured to keep metal particles from leaking.
Lakshminarayan teaches wherein the coating is configured to keep metal particles from leaking (abstract; col. 7:61-8:11).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Guo with the teaching of Lakshminarayan, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for improving strength (Lakshminarayan: abstract; col. 7:61-8:11).
Regarding claim 2, Guo discloses wherein the coating comprises a heavy metal powder configured to increase radiation shielding (par. 35: with tungsten increasing shielding).
Regarding claim 3, Guo discloses wherein the coating (par. 35) is necessarily transparent to radiation (such as being transparent to radiation with 1 ZeV).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chih-Cheng Kao whose telephone number is (571)272-2492. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
/Chih-Cheng Kao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884