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 statements filed 12/13/2024 and 3/25/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 claims are replete with errors. The claims should be revised carefully to correct the numerous errors. Examples of some unclear, inexact, or verbose limitations in the claims are:
Due to the run-on structure of the limitation(s) it is unclear what element(s) are being further limited. For example, in claim 1, it is unclear what element is being further limited to have “a first center of area.”
It is unclear what “center of area” means in the context presented.
Claim 1 recites “when installed in an X-Ray laminography system…” It is unclear whether or not the structure of the apparatus is being further limited.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by Zankowski et al. (US 2020/0346037).
Regarding claims 1 and 9-10, Zankowski teaches a collimator for an X-ray inspection system, wherein the collimator is plate-shaped with a bottom and a top that is made of a material that is a good absorber of X-rays, wherein the collimator includes: a collimator aperture, wherein the collimator aperture has an inlet surface on the bottom that has a first center of area and an outlet surface on the top that has a second center of area, wherein the collimator aperture, when installed in an X-ray laminography system, is not struck by a central beam of a cone beam emitted by an X-ray tube of the X-ray laminography system (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Zankowski teaches the inlet surface and the outlet surface are each one of a circle or a quadrilateral (for example: Figs. 4C and 8B).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Zankowski teaches a volume of the collimator aperture is a truncated cone or a truncated pyramid whose respective central axis is a collimation axis (For example: Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Zankowski teaches the collimator aperture does not comprise a center of area of the bottom of the collimator, and the second center of area of the outlet surface is located farther out than the first center of area of the inlet surface on the collimator (For example: Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Zankowski teaches the inlet surface of the collimator aperture and the outlet surface of the collimator aperture each extend to an edge of the collimator (For example: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Zankowski teaches the collimator is made of a material with a high average atomic number and a high density ([0027]).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Zankowski teaches the collimator includes at least one additional collimator aperture (for example Figs 1-2, 4A).
Regarding claim 11, Zankowski teaches a collimator for an X-ray inspection system, wherein the collimator is plate-shaped with a bottom and a top that is made of a material that is a good absorber of X-rays, wherein the collimator includes: a collimator aperture, wherein the collimator aperture has an inlet surface on the bottom that has a first center of area and an outlet surface on the top that has a second center of area, wherein the first center of area and the second center of area form a collimation axis that forms a collimation angle (γ) not equal to zero (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by Ullberg et al. (US 2007/0223653).
Regarding claim 18-19, Ullberg teaches an X-ray laminography system with an X-ray tube (11; [0030]), wherein the X-ray tube has a focus at which X-rays are generated in a form of a cone beam (Fig. 2), with a detector (16) that is struck by a useful beam of the cone beam, and with a collimator (11) arranged between the focus and the detector, wherein a collimator aperture of the collimator is aligned such that only that portion of the X-rays of the cone beam generated at the focus that forms the useful beam is allowed to pass through the collimator aperture, so that a test object to be inspected that can be introduced into the cone beam between the collimator and the detector is only exposed to the X-rays in an inspection area (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Ullberg teaches a normal of a surface of the collimator is parallel to a central beam of the cone beam (Fig. 2).
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.
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) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zankowski et al. (US 2020/0346037).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Zankowski does not explicitly teach specific thickness and collimation angles. However, absent some degree of criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to have the collimator has a thickness of 0.1 – 5.0 mm and/or an aperture angle of the collimator aperture is between 1° and 40° and/or a collimation angle (γ) is between 10° and 70°, since it has been held that 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carolyn Fin whose telephone number is (571)270-1286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
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 571-272-3995. 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.
/CAROLYN FIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights