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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-22 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1-22 recite reference numbers with parathesis and also without parathesis that is not permitted (for example see claims 1 and 17 claiming “detector 108”). Examiner recommends amend claims and make available a clean copy of claims without reciting any reference numbers with and without parathesis to avoid any misperception and informalities. Appropriate correction is required and respectfully requested.
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 (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 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)(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, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Scoullar et al. (US PAP 2017/0269257 A1) (the prior art is provided by applicant).
With respect to claim 1, Scoullar et al. teaches a calibration method for a gauging instrument, the method comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431):
PNG
media_image1.png
337
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
312
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
positioning in a first position, and one at a time, n samples each having a known basis weight (see paragraph 0281, 0293 and 0340), the first position is between a source (200; 201) and a detector array (202; 209) comprised of m detectors linearly oriented in a first direction; scanning the n samples by, (a) irradiating each of the n samples with x-rays from the source (200; 201) (see paragraph 0352), (b) stepping each of the n samples in the first direction in a step that is smaller than the spatial resolution of the detectors (202; 209) (see Table 2; paragraphs 0009 and 0099),
PNG
media_image3.png
554
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
498
379
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and (c) irradiating each of the n samples with x-rays from the source (see paragraph 0353); generating m groups of signals, each group corresponding to one of the m detectors (see Fig. 9; paragraphs 0121, 0136 and 0137) and each signal proportional to x-rays transmitted through each of the n samples and impinging on one of the m detectors during the scanning; and establishing a calibration curve for each detector by fitting the known basis weights for each of the n samples to the group of m signals (see paragraph 0293), wherein n is a positive integer greater than 0 (see paragraphs 0281, 0293, 0340) and m is a positive integer greater than 1 (see paragraph 0121; 0136 and 0137).
With respect to claim 2, Scoullar et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431) further comprising repeating the stepping and irradiating steps one or more times (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431).
With respect to claim 4, Scoullar et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431), wherein the samples each independently have a uniform composition (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431).
With respect to claim 5, Scoullar et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431), wherein the samples include cathode active materials, a pure metal, a metal alloy, a plastic, ceramic, or a semiconductor material (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431).
With respect to claim 9, Scoullar et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431), wherein a number of n samples is greater than 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431).
With respect to claim 10, Scoullar et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431), wherein a number of detectors in the array m is between 1 and 20000 (see paragraph 0121).
With respect to claim 12, Scoullar et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431), wherein the step is less than or equal to half of a spatial resolution of the n detectors (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431).
With respect to claim 13, Scoullar et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431), wherein the step is less than or equal to 5 mm (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431).
With respect to claim 14, Scoullar et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431) further comprising stopping after each step for the same amount of time (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431).
With respect to claim 15, Scoullar et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431), wherein x-rays from the source form a fan-beam emanating from the source and expanding towards the array of detectors (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431).
With respect to claim 16, Scoullar et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431), wherein the n samples are positioned proximate to the detector array and distal from the source (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431).
With respect to claim 17, Scoullar et al. teaches a system for calibration of a gauging instrument comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431):
PNG
media_image3.png
554
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
498
379
media_image4.png
Greyscale
an x-ray source (200; 201); a detector array (202; 209) comprised of m detectors linearly oriented in a first direction; a space between the source (200; 201) and the detector array (202; 209); a sample holder;
PNG
media_image1.png
337
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a computing device (103) having executable code stored thereon, wherein the executable code is configured to send instruction (see paragraph 0073) for one or more of: positioning in a first position, and one at a time, n samples each having a known basis weight, the first position is between the source (200; 201) and the detector array (202; 209); scanning the n samples by (see paragraphs 00281, 0293, 0288; 0340), (a) irradiating each of the n samples with x-rays from the source (paragraph 00352), (b) stepping each of the n samples in the first direction in a step that is smaller than the spatial resolution of the detectors (see Table 2; paragraphs 0009 and 0099), and (c) irradiating each of the n samples with x-rays from the source (see paragraph 0352); generating m groups of signals, each group corresponding to one of the m detectors (see paragraphs 0121; 0136 and 0137), and each signal proportional to x-rays transmitted through each of the n samples and impinging on one of the m detectors during the scanning; and establishing a calibration curve for each detector by fitting the known basis weights for each of the n samples to the group of m signals (see paragraphs 0293; 0340), wherein n is a positive integer greater than 0 (paragraph 0281) and m is positive integer greater than 1 (paragraph 0121).
With respect to claim 18, Scoullar et al. teaches the system according to claim 17 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431). The further limitation “wherein the sample holder can accommodate more than one sample at a time.” has not been considered because it has been held that the recitation that an element can perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense.
With respect to claim 19, Scoullar et al. teaches the system according to claim 17 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431), wherein the step is less than the spatial resolution of the n detectors (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431).
With respect to claim 20, Scoullar et al. teaches the system according to claim 17, wherein the sample holder is an xy-stage (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431). The further limitation “that can move the sample in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction while maintaining the same distance of the sample to the source” has not been considered because it has been held that the recitation that an element can perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense.
With respect to claim 21, Scoullar et al. teaches the system according to claim 17 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431) further comprising a translation element configured to translate a web through the space (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431).
With respect to claim 22, Scoullar et al. teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable media having instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processing devices of a gauging instrument support apparatus, cause the gauging support apparatus to perform the method of claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431).
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.
Claims 3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoullar et al. (US PAP 2017/0269257 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Scoullar et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431) but fails to explicitly mention that the samples are flat.
It 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 to provide the flat samples in the method of Scoullar et al., since such a modification would allow user to place sample closer to the X-ray source without risk of collision enabling imaging with higher magnification, leading to improved spatial resolution.
With respect to claim 6, Scoullar et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431) but fails to explicitly teach that the known basis weight is accurate to 1%.
It 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 to provide the known basis weight that is accurate to 1% in the method of Scoullar et al. to ensure accuracy and precision, since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 7, Scoullar et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431) but fails to explicitly teach that an area of the sample facing the source is greater than 10 cm2.
It 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 to provide the area of the sample facing the source is greater than 10 cm2 in the method of Scoullar et al., since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 8, Scoullar et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431) but fails to explicitly teach that a mass of the sample is at least 5 mg.
It 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 to provide the mass of the sample that is at least 5 mg in the method of Scoullar et al., since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoullar et al. (US PAP 2017/0269257 A1) in view of Zhao (WO 2020/028422 A1) (the prior art is provided by applicant).
With respect to claim 11, Scoullar et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 18; Table 2; paragraphs 0009, 0099, 0121, 0136-0137, 0148, 0210, 0281-0293, 0340, 0352 and 0431) but fails to explicitly mention that prior to establishing the calibration curve: positioning in a second position, and one at a time, the n samples between the source and the detector array, wherein the second position is offset in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and the second position places the n samples a same distance from the source as in the first position; scanning the n samples by repeating steps; generating a group of m′ signals each proportional to x-rays transmitted through each of the n samples during each step and impinging on one of the m detectors during each step; and updating the group of m signals to include the group of m′ signals prior to establishing the calibration curve for each detector.
Zhao discloses a system/method for X-ray imaging which explicitly teaches prior to establishing the calibration curve for each detector that (see paragraph 0331 disclosing)"The motion can be in increments of a fraction of pixel pitch. For example, in order to resolve unknown pixels along the third axis to reconstruct the multiple dimension image, the motion can result in measurements on the detector (14) with no new unknown pixels introduced along the projected image, but with new measurements on the detectors with a different projected path for the selected image of the region of interest"; (see paragraph 0382 disclosing): "the detector can acquire data along the X direction and y direction. If movement is made along the Z direction, that movement can likewise be divided into NZ data points"; (see paragraph 0452 disclosing): "When the x-ray source is moving relative to the subject in the 2D, or 3D or 6D space, such as in an arc or a straight line, such movements may be translated to be equivalent to a movement on a 2D plane, which may be parallel to the detector" in order to provide user with the capabilities for quantitative or qualitative measurement by detecting the decrease in transmission, since each detector in the detector array responds slightly differently to the x-ray radiation, and allow that each detector is individually calibrated to ensure accuracy and precision.
Scoullar et al. and Zhao disclose related methods/apparatuses for detector calibration to ensure accuracy and precision.
It 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 to provide teachings of position is offset in a second direction as suggested by Zhao in the method/apparatus of Scoullar et al, since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to allow that each detector is individually calibrated to ensure accuracy and precision.
It would have been obvious to treat Scoullar et al. and Zhao as related art whereby an improvement on one of the systems/methods would readily be apparent as an improvement on either of the systems.
The Examiner’s conclusion that claim 11 would have been obvious is based on the fact that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lerche et al. (US PAP 2016/0187497 A1) teaches the method allowing that each detector pixel is individually calibrated to ensure accuracy and precision (see abstract; Figs. 1-14; paragraphs 0003, 0070 and 0075).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRAKLI KIKNADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6494. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 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 J. 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.
Irakli Kiknadze
/IRAKLI KIKNADZE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/I.K./ March 3, 2026