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) 17-18, 20, 22 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grodzins et al. (US 6459761) in view of Chalmers et al. (US 20090257555).
Regarding claim 17, Grodzins teaches an x-ray scanning system for inspecting an object, the system comprising:
a first mobile backscatter imaging x-ray scanner 60 configured and disposed for backscatter imaging comprising a first x-ray beam source 62 and a first x-ray detector 70;
a second imaging x-ray scanner 72 comprising a second x-ray beam source 74 and a second x-ray detector 80;
wherein the first mobile backscatter imaging x-ray scanner is separate and distinct from the second imaging x-ray scanner (figure 4),
a data integrator configured and disposed to receive and integrate a first compilation of scanning data from the first mobile backscatter imaging x-ray scanner and to receive and integrate second compilation of scanning data from the second imaging x-ray scanner and to output the integrated compilations of scanning data to an inspection station (col 8 lines 7-30);
a controller (computer) configured and disposed to control at least one of the first mobile backscatter imaging x-ray scanner and the second x-ray scanner; and
the inspection station is configured and disposed to present the integrated scanning data for the inspecting of the object (col 8 lines 7-30).
However Grodzins fails to teach the first mobile backscatter imaging x-ray scanner is configured and disposed to move to a first position and to move from the first position to a second position and the moving device comprises a movable conveyance with wheels configured and disposed to move the first mobile backscatter imaging x-ray scanner on a surface of a scanner area.
Chalmers teaches a first mobile backscatter imaging x-ray scanner 710 is configured and disposed to move to a first position and to move from the first position to a second position and a moving device comprises a movable conveyance with wheels configured and disposed to move the first mobile backscatter imaging x-ray scanner on a surface of a scanner area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the system of Grodzins with the device as taught by Chalmers, since it would provide better mobility.
Regarding claim 18, Chalmers teaches the moving device comprises a motorized vehicle or cart, or a non-motorized conveyance (para 18).
Regarding claim 20, Chalmers teaches the first mobile scatter imaging x-ray scanner has the inspection station 450.
Regarding claim 22, Grodzins fails to teach the second imaging x-ray scanner is a second mobile backscatter imaging x-ray scanner configured and disposed for backscatter imaging comprising a second x-ray beam source and a second x-ray detector, the second mobile imaging x-ray scanner has wheels for moving on the surface of the scanner area.
Chalmers teaches an imaging x-ray scanner 710 is a mobile backscatter imaging x-ray scanner configured and disposed for backscatter imaging comprising an x-ray beam source and an x-ray detector, the mobile imaging x-ray scanner has wheels for moving on the surface of the scanner area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the second imaging x-ray scanner of Grodzins with the mobile device as taught by Chalmers, since it would provide better mobility.
Regarding claim 26, Grodzins teaches the second imaging x-ray scanner is a fixed x-ray scanner and is fixed in a position on the surface of the scanner area.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grodzins in view of Naito et al. (US 20160089104).
Grodzins fails to teach at least one of a) and b), wherein a) and b) are: a) measuring or sensing at least one of a first distance between the first mobile x-ray scanner and the first side of the object being scanned and a second distance between the second x-ray scanner and the second side of the object being scanned; and mitigating vertical scaling artifacts with the at least one measured or sensed distance; and b) resampling at least one of a vertical dimension of the object being scanned and a horizontal dimension of the object being scanned, with at least one of the first mobile x-ray scanner and the second x-ray scanner; and mitigating at least one of a vertical scaling artifact and a horizontal scaling artifact, with the at least one resample.
Naito teaches measuring or sensing 12 at least one of a first distance between the first mobile x-ray scanner and the first side of the object being scanned and a second distance between the second x-ray scanner and the second side of the object being scanned; and mitigating scaling artifacts with the at least one measured or sensed distance (para 16-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Grodzins with the correction as taught by Naito, since it would provide better image.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grodzins.
Regarding claim 21, Grodzins fails to teach the performing the first scan is performed in a first instance of time, the performing the second scan is performed in a second instance of time, and the performing the third scan is performed in a third instance of time, the first, the second, and the third instances of time are different.
Different scanning times are known.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the scanning with the different scanning times, since it would effectively scan the object.
Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grodzins et al. as modified by Chalmers et al. further in view of Name et al. (US 20250100545).
Regarding claim 23, Grodzins as modified fails to teach demarcations placed on a surface in a scanner area to indicate disposition, or placement, of the first mobile backscatter imaging x-ray scanner.
Name teaches demarcations placed on a surface in a area to indicate disposition, or placement, of a mobile device (para 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the system of Grodzins with the demarcations as taught by Name, since it would provide better parking.
Regarding claim 24, Grodzins fails to teach a first demarcation for the disposition, or placement, of the first mobile x-ray scanner and a second demarcation for the disposition, or placement, of the second mobile x-ray scanner, wherein the first demarcation and the second demarcation are placed to provide a movement path for the object being inspected.
Name teaches demarcations placed on a surface in a area to indicate disposition, or placement, of a mobile device (para 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the system of Grodzins with the demarcations as taught by Name, since it would provide better parking.
Regarding claim 25, Grodzins fails to teach demarcating the selected first position in the scanner area prior to the moving of the first mobile backscatter imaging x-ray scanner to the first selected position in the scanning area.
Name teaches demarcations placed on a surface in a area to indicate disposition, or placement, of a mobile device (para 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the system of Grodzins with the demarcations as taught by Name, since it would provide better parking.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 9 and 11 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach a method of x-ray scanning and inspecting at least one object, the method comprising: selecting a first position on a surface in a scanner first scan area for a first mobile backscatter imaging x-ray scanner; wherein the first mobile backscatter imaging x-ray scanner has a first x-ray beam source and a first x-ray detector and is configured for backscatter imaging; rotating wheels and moving the first mobile backscatter imaging x-ray scanner on the surface of the scanner first scan area to the first selected position, with a movable conveyance; performing a first scan of at least a first side of ana first object with the first mobile backscatter imaging x-ray scanner, while at least one of the first mobile backscatter imaging x- ray scanner and the first object are moving, and generating a first compilation of scanning data; selecting a second position on a surface in a second scan area for the first mobile backscatter imaging x-ray scanner; rotating wheels and moving the first mobile backscatter imaging x-ray scanner on the surface of the second scan area to the second selected position, with a movable conveyance; performing a second scan of at least a first side of a second object with the first mobile backscatter imaging x-ray scanner, while at least one of the first mobile backscatter imaging x- ray scanner and the second object are moving, and generating a second compilation of scanning data; wherein the first object and the second object may be the same object or different objects, the first and the second scan areas may be the same or different, and the first and the second selected positions are different; transmitting the first second compilation of scanning data to an inspection station; moving at least one of a second x-ray scanner and the second object being scanned, wherein the second object being scanned or the second x-ray scanner is moved relative to the other; wherein the second x-ray scanner is separate and distinct from the first mobile backscatter imaging x-ray scanner and has a second x-ray beam source and a second x-ray detector; performing a second third scan of at least a second side of the first second object with the second x-ray scanner, while the at least one of the second x-ray scanner and the second object being scanned are moving, and generating a second third compilation of scanning data, wherein the second side of the second object being scanned is different than the first side of the second object being scanned; wherein the second compilation of scanning data and the third compilation of scanning data are separate and distinct scan data sets; transmitting the second third compilation of scanning data to the inspection station; integrating the first second compilation of scanning data with the second third compilation of scanning data, at the inspection station; and wherein the selecting of the first second position of the first mobile x-ray scanner for the first second scan and the moving of the at least one of the second x-ray scanner and the second object being scanned for the second third scan are based upon mitigating crosstalk between the first x-ray beam source and the second x-ray detector and between the second x-ray beam source and the first x-ray detector, or to provide for a linear movement path of the object being scanned as claimed in independent claim1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17-20 and 22-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 HOON K SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2494. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 10am to 7pm.
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 on 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.
/HOON K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884