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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 05/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims are 12-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/06/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to the Office action dated on 03/24/2026 the Amendment has been received on 05/06/2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application from which claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, without traverse in the reply filed on 05/06/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9 and 10, filed on 05/06/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
The term “less than a threshold distance” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “less than a threshold distance” 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 term “less than a threshold distance” is a relative term because it represents a cutoff rather an absolute measurement, it varies significantly based on a frame of reference or scale. There is nothing in the application to tell public what to do to avoid infringement in this respect or where infringement in this respect begins; rule against indefiniteness is not only a technical one, but to protect public and keep patentee from taking an advantage to which he is not entitled.
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.
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 1, 2, 4, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colaw et al. (US Patent 11,975,585 B2) in view of Safai (US PAP 20250137946 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Colaw et al. teaches a system comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1-5; paragraphs 0006, 0008-0016, 0018-0029 and 0033-0039): a wall-climbing robot such as a crawler drone (200) (see Figs. 2a-2f illustrating the crawler drone (200) with a sequence of transitions performed by a simplified representation of a crawler drone (100) that illustrated in Fig. 1 as it traverses a complex multi-oriented surface (220); paragraphs 0024-0030),
PNG
media_image1.png
731
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the wall-climbing robot (200) is configured to selectively attach to a wall (220) while moving along the wall (220) in a first direction relative to a body of the wall-climbing robot (200) (see Figs. 2a-2f; paragraphs 0024-0030); wherein the wall-climbing robot (200) includes an X-ray module (see paragraph 0022 and claim 11) inherently comprising: an X-ray emitter that is operable to generate a beam and an X-ray detector, wherein the X-ray detector is operable to detect X-rays emitted from the X-ray emitter. Colaw et al. fails to explicitly mention that the X-ray emitter is operable to scan the beam of X-rays in a second direction that is substantially perpendicular to the first direction; wherein the X-ray detector is operable to detect X-rays scattered back toward the X-ray detector from the wall.
Safai teaches discloses a mobile integrated backscatter X-ray system (100) for detecting backscatter X-rays reflected by target area and associated methods (see abstract; Figs. 1-20; paragraphs 0003, 0007, 0039, 0041, 0044-0050, 0053, 0062-0066, 0069, 0071, 0074, 0088 and 0091)
PNG
media_image2.png
677
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
505
666
media_image3.png
Greyscale
which explicitly teaches an X-ray emitter (106), wherein the X-ray emitter (106) is operable to generate a beam of X-rays and the scan the beam of X-rays in a second direction that is substantially perpendicular to the first direction; and an X-ray detector (108), wherein the X-ray detector (108) is operable to detect X-rays emitted from the X-ray emitter and scattered back toward the X-ray detector from a target area (128) (see Figs. 1 and 7; paragraph 0041-0049) in order to provide user with the capabilities to capture XYZ backscatter X-ray data while generating a three-dimensional backscatter X-ray data that is available for reconstruction of three-dimensional models of the target/inspection area (see paragraph 0001).
Colaw et al. and Safai disclose related apparatuses for the mobile integrated backscatter X-ray system
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 that the X-ray emitter is operable to scan the beam of X-rays in a second direction that is substantially perpendicular to the first direction; wherein the X-ray detector is operable to detect X-rays scattered back toward the X-ray detector from the target area as suggested by Safai in the apparatus of Colaw et al., since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to capture XYZ backscatter X-ray data while generating the three-dimensional backscatter X-ray data that is available for reconstruction of three-dimensional models of the target/inspection area, as needed.
It would have been obvious to treat Colaw et al. and Safai 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 1 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).
With respect to claim 2, Colaw et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-5; paragraphs 0006, 0008-0016, 0018-0029 and 0033-0039) as modified by Safai (see abstract; Figs. 1-20; paragraphs 0003, 0007, 0039, 0041, 0044-0050, 0053, 0062-0066, 0069, 0071, 0074, 0088 and 0091) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Safai further teaches that a direction of the beam of X-rays in the second direction is controllable by controlling a direction of a beam of electrons emitted from a cathode of the X-ray emitter toward a target of the X-ray emitter (106) (see Figs. 1-4), since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to capture XYZ backscatter X-ray data while generating the three-dimensional backscatter X-ray data that is available for reconstruction of three-dimensional models of the target/inspection area, as needed.
With respect to claim 4, Colaw et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-5; paragraphs 0006, 0008-0016, 0018-0029 and 0033-0039) as modified by Safai (see abstract; Figs. 1-20; paragraphs 0003, 0007, 0039, 0041, 0044-0050, 0053, 0062-0066, 0069, 0071, 0074, 0088 and 0091) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Safai et al. further teaches a controller (140) comprising one or more processors and configured to perform controller operations including: operating the X-ray emitter (106) to emit the beam of X-rays and to scan the beam of X-rays along the second direction, thereby illuminating a plurality of locations of the target/inspection area; operating the X-ray detector (108) to detect X-rays emitted from the X-ray emitter and scattered back toward the X-ray detector from the plurality of locations of the target/inspection area; and based on the detected X-rays, determining at least one of a geometry of the wall along the plurality of locations see abstract; Figs. 1-20; paragraphs 0003, 0007, 0039, 0041, 0044-0050, 0053, 0062-0066, 0069, 0071, 0074, 0088 and 0091), since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to capture XYZ backscatter X-ray data while generating the three-dimensional backscatter X-ray data that is available for reconstruction of three-dimensional models of the target/inspection area, as needed.
With respect to claim 9, as the best comprehended by examiner, Colaw et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-5; paragraphs 0006, 0008-0016, 0018-0029 and 0033-0039) as modified by Safai (see abstract; Figs. 1-20; paragraphs 0003, 0007, 0039, 0041, 0044-0050, 0053, 0062-0066, 0069, 0071, 0074, 0088 and 0091) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Safai further teaches a collimator (122) as an aperture portion (122) (see Fig.1) configured to prevent the X-ray detector (108) form detecting X-rays emitted from the X-ray emitter (106) that are scattered by material of the target area (128) (see paragraph 0049).
With respect to claim 10, Colaw et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-5; paragraphs 0006, 0008-0016, 0018-0029 and 0033-0039) as modified by Safai (see abstract; Figs. 1-20; paragraphs 0003, 0007, 0039, 0041, 0044-0050, 0053, 0062-0066, 0069, 0071, 0074, 0088 and 0091) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the wall-climbing robot (200) comprises a vacuum source that is operable to selectively apply a vacuum to the wall, thereby allowing the wall-climbing robot to selectively attach to the wall (see paragraphs 0016 and 0020).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colaw et al. (US Patent 11,975,585 B2) in view of Safai (US PAP 2025/0137946 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gonzales et al. (US Patent 11,409,019 B1).
With respect to claim 3, Colaw et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-5; paragraphs 0006, 0008-0016, 0018-0029 and 0033-0039) as modified by Safai (see abstract; Figs. 1-20; paragraphs 0003, 0007, 0039, 0041, 0044-0050, 0053, 0062-0066, 0069, 0071, 0074, 0088 and 0091) teaches the system of claim 2 but fails to explicitly mention that the cathode of the X-ray emitter is a carbon nanotube cold cathode.
Gonzales et al. discloses a system for X-ray backscatter imaging (see Figs. 1; column 13, lines 57-67) which explicitly teaches a cold cathode Carbon Nanotube (CNT) based X-ray source (10) in order to provide user with the capabilities to significantly reduce the size and complexity of the X-ray source without compromising the X-ray power or dose. Reduction and simplification of the X-ray tube will enable a smaller, lighter, and more cost-effective overall imaging system.
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 teachings of the cold cathode Carbon Nanotube (CNT) based X-ray source as suggested by Gonzales et al. in the apparatus of Colaw et al. as modified by Safai, since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to significantly reduce the size and complexity of the X-ray source without compromising the X-ray power or dose. Reduction and simplification of the X-ray tube will enable a smaller, lighter, and more cost-effective overall imaging system.
It would have been obvious to treat Colaw, Safai and Gonzales et al. 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 3 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).
Claims 5-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colaw et al. (US Patent 11,975,585 B2) in view of Safai (US PAP 2025/0137946 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Rothschild et al. (US Patent 6,249,567 B1).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Colaw et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-5; paragraphs 0006, 0008-0016, 0018-0029 and 0033-0039) as modified by Safai (see abstract; Figs. 1-20; paragraphs 0003, 0007, 0039, 0041, 0044-0050, 0053, 0062-0066, 0069, 0071, 0074, 0088 and 0091) teaches the system of claim 4 but fails to explicitly mention that the beam of X-rays emitted from the X-ray emitter is polychromatic and wherein the X-ray detector is operable to detect X-rays at at least two wavelengths of the polychromatic beam of X-rays; wherein the X-ray detector comprises a pulse-photon count detector.
Rothschild et al. discloses a system for X-ray backscatter imaging (see Figs. 1; column 13, lines 57-67) which explicitly teaches that a beam of X-rays (14) emitted from an X-ray emitter (12) is polychromatic and wherein an X-ray detector (24) is operable to detect X-rays at at least two wavelengths of the polychromatic beam of X-rays (see Fig.1; column 2, lines 56-67); wherein the X-ray detector (24) comprises a pulse-photon count detector (see column 4, lines 1-11) in order to provide user with the capabilities to enable wavelength-specific imaging with detection the energy of individual incident X-ray photons.
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 teachings of the beam of polychromatic X-rays emitted from the X-ray emitter and wherein the wherein the X-ray detector comprises the pulse-photon count detector as suggested by Rothschild et al. in the apparatus of Colaw et al. as modified by Safai, since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to enable wavelength-specific imaging with detection the energy of individual incident X-ray photons.
It would have been obvious to treat Colaw, Safai and Rothschild et al. 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 claims 5 and 6 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).
With respect to claim 7, Colaw et al. (US Patent 11,975,585 B2; see abstract; Figs. 1-5; paragraphs 0006, 0008-0016, 0018-0029 and 0033-0039) as modified by Safai (US PAP 2025/0137946 A1; see abstract; Figs. 1-20; paragraphs 0003, 0007, 0039, 0041, 0044-0050, 0053, 0062-0066, 0069, 0071, 0074, 0088 and 0091) and Rothschild et al. (US Patent 6,249,567 B1see Figs. 1; column 13, lines 57-67) teaches the system of claim 5, further comprising: a controller comprising one or more processors and configured to perform controller operations including: during a first period of time, operating the X-ray emitter to emit the beam of X-rays to illuminate the wall; during the first period of time, operating the X-ray detector to detect X-rays emitted from the X-ray emitter and scattered back toward the X-ray detector from the wall at the at least two wavelengths; based on the detected X-rays, selecting at least one of the at least two wavelengths; during a second period of time, operating the X-ray emitter to emit the beam of X-rays and to scan the beam of X-rays along the second direction, thereby illuminating a plurality of locations of the wall; during the second period of time, operating the X-ray detector to detect X-rays emitted from the X-ray emitter and scattered back toward the X-ray detector from the plurality of locations of the wall at the selected at least one of the at least two wavelengths; and based on X-rays detected during the second period of time, determining at least one of a geometry of the wall along the plurality of locations.
With respect to claim 8, Colaw et al. (US Patent 11,975,585 B2; see abstract; Figs. 1-5; paragraphs 0006, 0008-0016, 0018-0029 and 0033-0039) as modified by Safai (US PAP 2025/0137946 A1; see abstract; Figs. 1-20; paragraphs 0003, 0007, 0039, 0041, 0044-0050, 0053, 0062-0066, 0069, 0071, 0074, 0088 and 0091) and Rothschild et al. (US Patent 6,249,567 B1see Figs. 1; column 13, lines 57-67) teaches the system of claim 5, further comprising: a controller comprising one or more processors and configured to perform controller operations including: operating the X-ray emitter to emit the beam of X-rays to illuminate the wall; operating the X-ray detector to detect X-rays emitted from the X-ray emitter and scattered back toward the X-ray detector from the wall at the at least two wavelengths; and based on the detected X-rays at the at least two different wavelengths, identifying a composition of a material that scattered the detected X-rays at the at least two different wavelengths.
With respect to claim 11, Colaw et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-5; paragraphs 0006, 0008-0016, 0018-0029 and 0033-0039) as modified by Safai (see abstract; Figs. 1-20; paragraphs 0003, 0007, 0039, 0041, 0044-0050, 0053, 0062-0066, 0069, 0071, 0074, 0088 and 0091) teaches the system of claim 1 but fails to explicitly teach that the X-ray detector comprises a pulse-photon count detector.
Rothschild et al. discloses a system for X-ray backscatter imaging (see Figs. 1; column 13, lines 57-67) which explicitly that an X-ray detector (24) comprises a pulse-photon count detector (see column 4, lines 1-11) in order to provide user with the capabilities to enable wavelength-specific imaging with detection the energy of individual incident X-ray photons.
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 teachings of the X-ray detector comprises the pulse-photon count detector as suggested by Rothschild et al. in the apparatus of Colaw et al. as modified by Safai, since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to enable wavelength-specific imaging with detection the energy of individual incident X-ray photons.
It would have been obvious to treat Colaw, Safai and Rothschild et al. 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
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./ June 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights