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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 9 are amended. Claims 12-14 are newly added. No claims are cancelled. Claims 1-14 remain pending.
Response to Remarks
In light of the amendments to the claims in the response filed 05/06/2026, specifically the phrase “wherein the sintered body is formed by a sintering process performed at a temperature that is lower than a melting point of the metal powder and a melting point of the metal binder” to the independent claims 1 and 9, as well as new claims, a new rejection under 35 USC § 103 is set forth below in view of SENTHILNATHAN et al.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AMICK (US Pub # 2005/0188790) in view of SENTHILNATHAN et al.1
Regarding claims 1 and 12, AMICK discloses an X-ray shielding material and method of making, comprising sintering a body containing a metal binder and a metal powder of metal having an atomic number that is equal to or larger than an atomic number of the metal binder (W—Cu—Ni alloy comprises a metal binder of copper and nickel, and metal powder of Tungsten; [0003]). It is noted that the intended use of the apparatus (x-ray shielding) is not limiting of the structure of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02(II) for details. The Examiner further notes that the limitation “wherein the sintered body is formed by a sintering process performed at a temperature that is lower than a melting point of the metal powder and a melting point of the metal binder” amounts to a product-by-process limitation. MPEP 2113 explains:
“the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966…The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979)”
Applicant’s specification explains that sintering with a heated temperature lower than the melting points of the metal powder and binders respectively causes the metal powders to bond to each other by the diffusion phenomenon (Specification, [0059]). AMICK does not specify the specific structure of the sintered materials bonded to each other by the diffusion phenomenon. In the same field of endeavor, SENTHILNATHAN discloses a method of forming a W—CU—Ni alloy and radiation shielding comprising the step of performing a solid-state sintering, wherein the binder and metal are heated to a temperature lower than their respective melting points, the sintering comprising an inter diffusion process (see Section 3.2: Consolidation of W—Ni—Cu Alloys; Section 1.1 explains the utility of sintered compositions in radiation shielding), wherein the solid-state sintering is performed at lower temperatures and faster speeds relative to liquid sintering (abstract & section 1.2). In light of the teachings of SENTHILNATHAN, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of AMICK.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, AMICK discloses wherein the metal binder is formed of at least one or more kinds of metal having an atomic number of 13 or larger, and the metal powder is formed of at least one or more kinds of metal having an atomic number of 56 or larger (W—Cu—Ni alloy; [0003]).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, AMICK discloses the metal binder configured by any one of iron, copper, and nickel, and the metal powder is configured by tungsten (W—Cu—Ni alloy; [0003]).
Regarding claim 9, AMICK discloses a method of making a shielding, comprising sintering a body containing a metal binder and a metal powder of metal having an atomic number that is equal to or larger than an atomic number of the metal binder (W—Cu—Ni alloy comprises a metal binder of copper and nickel, and metal powder of Tungsten; [0003]). AMICK does not specify the sintering heating temperature lower than a melting point of the metal powder and a melting point of the metal binder. In the same field of endeavor, SENTHILNATHAN discloses a method of forming a W—CU—Ni alloy radiation shielding comprising a solid-state sintering, wherein the binder and metal are heated to a temperature lower than their respective melting points, the sintering comprising an inter diffusion process (see Section 3.2: Consolidation of W—Ni—Cu Alloys; Section 1.1 explains the utility of sintered compositions in radiation shielding), wherein the solid-state sintering is performed at lower temperatures and faster speeds (abstract & section 1.2). In light of the teachings of SENTHILNATHAN, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of AMICK.
Regarding claim 10, AMICK discloses wherein the metal binder is formed of at least one or more kinds of metal having an atomic number of 13 or larger, and the metal powder is formed of at least one or more kinds of metal having an atomic number of 56 or larger (W—Cu—Ni alloy; [0003]).
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AMICK (US 20050188790 A1) in view of SENTHILNATHAN et al., and ZOU et al. (US 20090185660 A1).
Regarding claims 4-6, AMICK in view of SENTHILNATHAN discloses an x-ray shielding comprising the shielding material according to claims 1-3, as set forth above. However, the combined references do not specify details regarding an X-ray inspection apparatus. In the same field of endeavor, ZOU discloses an x-ray inspection apparatus (FIG. 10) comprising: an X-ray generator that generates X-rays (source 214); an X-ray detector that detects the X-rays (detector assembly; [0049]); and a shielding member that shields the X-rays (FIG 2 shows anode shield 40 surrounding the anode source 38; [0034-0038]), with the benefit of shielded x-ray inspection applications. In light of the teachings of ZOU, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of AMICK and SENTHINATHAN.
Regarding claim 7, ZOU discloses wherein a box that accommodates the X-ray generator and/or a housing in which the box is accommodated is formed by the shielding member (FIG 2).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AMICK (US 20050188790 A1) in view of SENTHILNATHAN et al., ZOU et al. (US 20090185660 A1) and HARGROVE (US 20080149864 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combined references disclose the device of claim 4, but do not specify a shielding member having a curtain shape on a transport path of an inspection objection. In the same field of endeavor, HARGROVE discloses a radiographic inspection system comprising a shielding member is disposed in a curtain shape on a transport path on which an inspection object is transported from a transport inlet to a transport outlet inside the apparatus (FIG 2), with the benefit of blocking radiation along a conveyance path. In light of the teachings of HARGROVE, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of the combined references.
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 CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P EST.
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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
1 N. Senthilnathan et al., “Sintering of Tungsten and Tungsten Heavy Alloys of W–Ni–Fe and W–Ni–Cu: A Review, Trans Indian Inst Met DOI 10.1007/s12666-016-0936-2.
Prosecution Insights