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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 § U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claims 1, 7, and 10
Claims 1, 7, and 10 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “movement feature” uses the generic placeholder “feature” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to casters, a track and a tread, or wheels (Applicant’s specification, ¶ 33, Fig. 1) and equivalents thereof. Regarding the interpretations of claims using generic placeholders, see MPEP § 2181(I)(A).
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “safety system” uses the generic placeholder “system” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to one or more safety sensors configured to secure the X-ray source when the one or more safety sensors detect an encroachment and one or more safety markers configured to project an exclusion zone at a distance from the spectrometer (Applicant’s specification, claims 8-9 as originally filed) and equivalents thereof.
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “caster assembly” uses the generic placeholder “assembly” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to casters (Applicant’s specification, ¶ 33, Fig. 1) and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “the Z-stage is configured to rotate about a plane defined by the Z-stage”. The phrase “rotate about a plane” is nonidiomatic and unclear. Ordinarily, an object’s rotation is described as rotation about an axis, or rotation within a plane. Further, even if the phrase “rotate about a plane” was clear, its particular use in the claim would still be unclear because, using ordinary meanings, an object cannot rotate about a plane defined by that object, as the plane would move with the object. While Applicant is free to be his own lexicographer, terms used contrary to their ordinary meaning must be clearly redefined in the written description. See MPEP § 2173.05(a)(III). No such clear redefinition exists in the written description. For the purposes of examination, --the Z-stage is configured to rotate
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–-----103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103) 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)(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.
(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 1-4, 6, 11-13, and 16-18
Claims 1-4, 6, 11-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alfeld (Alfeld, M. et al., “A mobile instrument for in situ scanning macro-XRF investigation of historical paintings”, 2013, J. Anal. At. Spectrom., 28, 760-767; a copy is attached).
Claims 1 and 10
Regarding claim 1, Alfeld discloses an X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis system (pp. 760-762; Abstract: " Scanning macro-X-ray fluorescence analysis (MA-XRF) … We present the first commercially available XRF scanner for paintings, consisting of an X-ray tube mounted with a Silicon-Drift (SD) detector on a motorized stage to be moved in front of a painting"; Introduction: “The resulting scanner, baptized M6 Jetstream, is the first commercially available macro-XRF scanner”; “The M6 Jetstream: technical characteristics” section; system shown in Fig. 1 on page 761) comprising:
a stand (frame) having at least one stage (X, Y, and Z stages; pp. 761-762 Technical Characteristics) and
a movement feature, the movement feature being configured to facilitate a movement of the stand, wherein the movement feature is casters (p. 762, Technical Characteristics: "The electronics box itself is mounted on a wheeled platform that allows for easy transport over short distances and positioning with respect to the painting"; four casters shown having different orientations in bottom part of Fig. 1);
a spectrometer coupled to one of the at least one stage, the spectrometer being configured to move in one or more axes to analyze a sample (painting; pp. 760-764, X-ray tube Silicon-Drift (SD) detector measurement head/scanner used for MA-XRF analysis configured for spectrometric measurements; the X-ray tube with SD detector is mounted on and moved by the X, Y, and Z stages);
a computing device (computer shown in top portion of Fig. 1) communicatively coupled to the stand and the spectrometer (inherently required for the described spectrometry), the computing device having a processor (inherent) with instructions software including routines for region-of-interest (ROI) imaging and principal component analysis (PCA), controlling scan area, and permitting online monitoring and offset correction) to:
determine a plurality of defined positions of the sample (Mosaic images are used for defining the scanned area; scans are performed with defined step sizes and defined pixel grids);
activate an X-ray source of the spectrometer (the 30 W Rh-target microfocus X-ray tube and operating settings such as 50 kV/0.6 mA and 35 kV/0.5 mA);
calibrate one or more of the at least one stage (distance setting, camera-based control of stage distance/beam size, and automatic correction of camera/X-ray offset)
map the sample with the spectrometer (acquisition of elemental distribution images and scanning of selected regions and nearly complete paintings); and
display an elemental map of the sample on a display (display shown in Fig. 1; ROI images are updated after each scanned line for online monitoring; mosaic images allow direct comparison with elemental distribution images; elemental (Pb, Au, Cu, Hg, Mn, Ti, Ba, Fe, Ca) maps shown in Figs. 5-6; pp. 760-766).
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Alfeld discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one stage comprises at least one X-stage, a Y-stage, and a Z-stage (p. 762, X, Y, and Z stages; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Alfeld discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the spectrometer is coupled to the Z-stage (see rejection of claim 1 above; p. 761, the exact distance between the measuring head and the painting is adjusted by a motorized stage along the Z axis; Fig. 4 shows adjusting the distance in the Z direction between the sample and the measuring head).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Alfeld discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the Z-stage is configured to rotate (via tilting; p, 761, The measurement head travels within a metal frame that can be tilted to adjust to the surface of a painting and to allow analysis of horizontally positioned samples).
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Alfeld discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the spectrometer has one or more position sensors used to determine the plurality of defined positions on the sample (p. 762, Two optical cameras with magnifying optics are mounted on the measuring head; one is used for controlling distance/beam size and another for automatically acquiring mosaic images used for defining the scanned area).
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, Alfeld discloses a method of X-ray fluorescence analysis (see rejection of claim 1 above; comprising: determining a plurality of defined positions on a sample (Mosaic images define the scanned area; step sizes sample and pixel arrays define a plurality of scan positions); activating an X-ray source of a spectrometer (p. 762, the X-ray tube and its operating settings during measurements are expressly disclosed); calibrating one or more of at least one stage (pp. 761-762, Distance/beam-size control and automatic camera/Xray offset correction are described); mapping the sample with the spectrometer; and displaying an elemental map of the sample on a display (see rejection of claim 1 above; pp. 760-766).
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, Alfeld discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising moving a position of the spectrometer such that the spectrometer is adjacent to the sample (p. 761, The X-ray tube/detectors are moved before the surface of a stationary painting during a scan; the exact distance between measuring head and painting is adjusted by Z-stage).
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, Alfeld discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising adjusting the spectrometer by moving one or more of the at least one stage (p. 761, X and Y stage motion to scan the sample surface; Z stage motion to adjust head-to-sample distance).
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, Alfeld discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (inherently required) having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computing device to perform operations comprising the method of claim 11 (see rejections of claims 1 and 11 above).
Claims 17-18
Claims 17-18, see the rejections of claims 12-13 above, respectively, mutatis mutandis.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102–103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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 C.F.R. § 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 5
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Alfeld as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yusef (US 2021/0206083 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Alfeld discloses the system of claim 2, but does not expressly disclose the at least one X-stage comprises a first X-stage and a second X-stage. However, using two stages to move heavy objects in the same direction was a well-known mechanical engineering technique called symmetric dual-driving. For example, Yusef discloses “first and second [stages] 80, 1280 work in a coordinated manner to reciprocate [object] 70 … [forming] a symmetric dual drive arm subsystem 1200 [that] may reduce friction and wear on components of the subsystem 1200” (¶ 62, emphases removed, language changed to simplify, clarify, or match claim language; Fig. 12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have modified the invention of Alfeld, in view of the teachings of Yusef, so that the at least one X-stage comprises a first X-stage and a second X-stage, being motivated to do so reduce friction and wear (Yusef, ¶ 62).
Claims 7-9
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Alfeld as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daly (US 2011/0102597 A1) and Barkallah (US 2025/0345013 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Alfeld discloses the system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose a safety system communicatively coupled to the computing device, wherein the safety system comprises: one or more safety sensors configured to secure the X-ray source when the one or more safety sensors detect an encroachment; and one or more safety markers configured to project an exclusion zone at a distance from the spectrometer.
Daly discloses an x-ray imaging system comprising one or more safety sensors (722) configured to secure an X-ray source when the one or more safety sensors (722) detect an encroachment (intruding human in operating zone; ¶ 47, Fig. 7).
Barkallah discloses an x-ray imaging system comprising one or more safety markers (1) configured to project an exclusion zone (safety zone ZS) at a distance from an X-ray source (42; ¶¶ 52-57, Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have modified the invention of Alfeld, in view of the teachings of Daly and Barkallah, to include a safety system communicatively coupled to the computing device, wherein the safety system comprises: one or more safety sensors configured to secure the X-ray source when the one or more safety sensors detect an encroachment; and one or more safety markers configured to project an exclusion zone at a distance from the spectrometer.
One would have been motivated to use a safety sensor to gain an advantage recited in Daly of verifying no human is intruding in the x-ray operating zone (Daly, ¶ 47).
One would have been motivated to use a safety marker to gain an advantage recited in Barkallah of limiting patient and staff X-ray exposure by making the safety zone visible (Barkallah, ¶¶ 71-74).
Claims 14 and 19
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Alfeld as applied to claims 11 and 16 above, and further in view of Daly.
Regarding claims 14 and 19, see the rejection of claims 7-9 above and the teachings of Daly, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 15 and 20
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Alfeld as applied to claims 11 and 16 above, and further in view of Barkallah.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, see the rejection of claims 7-9 above and the teachings of Barkallah, mutatis mutandis.
Other Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mazor (US 2008/0159475 A1) discloses an X-ray microfluorescence analyzer 20 comprising an X-ray tube source 24, optics 28, and detectors 32 (¶¶ 47-48; Fig. 1), wherein the X-ray source, optics, and detectors are shifted with respect to the object 82 being scanned (¶ 67).
Waldschläger (US 2019/0137422 A1) discloses an XRF spectrometer comprising movable a movable X-ray source and X-ray optic (¶¶ 23, 34).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE RIDDICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1865. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm ET, with flexible scheduling.
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 571-272-2995. 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.
Blake C. Riddick, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
