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 § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9 – 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (CN 112255111 A, cited in the IDS, See provided a translational copy).
With respect to independent claim 1, Liu teaches in Fig. 1 a system for scanning one or more parts 28, the system comprising:
a computed tomography scan machine comprising a platen 32 and a scanner comprising a X-ray source 41 and a detector 42 configured to perform at least one 360o computed tomography scan of the one or more parts positioned between the X-ray source and detector over a period of time;
a cooler 31; see paragraph [0023] arranged on the platen, wherein the cooler is configured to contain and maintain the one or more parts 28 at a predetermined target temperature of 0°C or below liquid nitrogen temperature in paragraph [0021] during the period of time, the cooler comprising:
a chamber 31;
a cooling medium liquid nitrogen in paragraph [0021] provided within the chamber that is configured to maintain the one or more parts at the predetermined target temperature during the period of time; and
a holder 27 – 29 provided within the chamber, the holder being configured to hold the one or more parts within a region of the chamber that surrounds the one or more parts and that is configured to provide the scanner a 360-degree view of the one or more parts unobstructed by the cooling medium.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Liu teaches in paragraph [0008] wherein the predetermined target temperature is -80°C or below.
With respect to dependent claim 4, Liu teaches in paragraph [0031] wherein the cooler comprises a wall that is radiolucent and that completely surrounds the holder.
With respect to dependent claim 6, Liu teaches in Fig. 1 wherein the cooling medium is a passive cooling medium.
With respect to dependent claims 9 – 10, the limitations of “wherein the one or more parts comprises one or more components of a syringe-piston or of a vial-stopper system and wherein the one or more parts comprises one or more assemblies of the syringe-piston or the vial-stopper system” are determined to be intended use. Any sample cannot carry any patentability unless invented.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 8, 11, 17 – 18, 20, 22, 24, and 26 – 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu.
The teaching of Liu has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 8, Liu is silent with a sensor that is configured to measure the predetermined target temperature within the cooler during the period of time.
However, having a temperature sensor would be within ordinary skilled art in order to measure the temperature of object when performing CT imaging. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 11, Liu is silent with wherein the scanner is configured to perform a second 360o computed tomography scan of the one or more parts positioned between the X-ray source and detector over a period of time at a second predetermined target temperature. However, performing CT at other temperatures would be within the ordinary skilled art in order to see temperature-dependent CT images.
With respect to independent claim 17, Liu is silent with a method of evaluating a tolerance of one or more parts at a predetermined target temperature, the method comprising: cooling the one or more parts to the predetermined target temperature, wherein the predetermined target temperature is -80°C or below; imaging the one or more parts with a computed tomography scan machine while maintaining the one or more parts at the predetermined target temperature; and evaluating the tolerance of the one or more parts at a second predetermined target temperature based on the imaging. However, Liu teaches in Figs. 1 and 4 cooling the one or more parts to the predetermined target temperature, wherein the predetermined target temperature is -80°C or below; imaging the one or more parts with a computed tomography scan machine while maintaining the one or more parts at the predetermined target temperature. And also, Liu discloses his invention is directed to material mechanical property testing in paragraph [0002]. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Liu in order to test desired properties of samples with CT. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 18, Liu is silent with wherein evaluating the tolerance of the one or more parts at the predetermined target temperature based on the imaging comprises: determining a dimension of the one or more parts at the predetermined target temperature based on the imaging; and comparing the dimension of the one or more parts at the predetermined target temperature to a dimension of the one or more parts at the second predetermined target temperature. However, in paragraph [0004] Liu measures three-dimensional deformation of desired samples. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Liu in order to evaluate desired properties of desired samples. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 20, as discussed above, the limitation of “wherein evaluating the tolerance of the one or more parts at the predetermined target temperature based on the imaging further comprises determining that the one or more parts at the predetermined target temperature is within the tolerance based on the comparing of the dimension of the one or more parts at the predetermined target temperature to the dimension of the one or more parts at the second predetermined target temperature” would be within the ordinary skilled art in order to evaluate the properties of desired samples. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 22, the limitation of “ wherein evaluating the tolerance of the one or more parts at the predetermined target temperature based on the imaging further comprises determining that the one or more parts at the predetermined target temperature is outside of the tolerance based on the comparing of the dimension of the one or more parts at the predetermined target temperature to the dimension of the one or more parts at the second predetermined target temperature” would be within the ordinary skilled art in order to evaluate the properties of desired samples. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 24, as discussed above, the limitation of “ determining the dimension of the one or more parts at the second predetermined target temperature comprising: imaging the one or more parts with the computed tomography scan machine with the one or more parts at the second predetermined target temperature; and determining the dimension of the one or more parts at the second predetermined target temperature based on the imaging” would be ordinary skilled art.
With respect to dependent claim 26, the limitation of “wherein the one or more parts is associated with a syringe-piston or vial stopper system” is intended use. Any sample cannot carry any patentability unless invented.
With respect to dependent claim 27, Liu teaches wherein the predetermined target temperature is -80°C or below in paragraph [0008].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 – 16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to independent claim 12, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
a holder arranged between the first and second cooling medium that is configured to hold the one or more parts in a region of the chamber where the one or more parts is substantially surrounded by the side walls and an entirety of the one or more parts is between and spaced apart from each of the first and second cooling medium.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 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, 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.
KIHO KIM, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884