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
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiyohara (JP2008259688 A; October 30, 2008).
Regarding claim 1, Kiyohara teaches an X-ray inspection device comprising:
an X-ray radiation device (Figure 1 Element 2) configured to emit an X-ray toward an inspected object (Paragraph 21 – x-ray tube 2 is an x-ray source that irradiates x-rays);
a scintillator (Figure 1 Element 31) configured to convert an X-ray emitted from the X-ray radiation device and incident through the inspected object into visible light (Paragraph 32 - scintillators); and
an imaging device (Figure 1 Element 32; Paragraph 24, 28 – x-ray detector) including an optical unit configured to collect the visible light emitted from the scintillator, the imaging device being configured to receive the visible light, wherein
the X-ray radiation device and the scintillator are installed such that the following formula (1) is 30 m or less (Paragraph 48 – the example values of the D, R1, R2 satisfy that the blur formula), where L1 [mm] represents a distance from a radiation position of the X-ray radiation device to an installation position or a conveyance position of the inspected object (Paragraph 28- R1+R2 Distance from the x-ray tube to the x-ray detector), L2 [mm] represents a distance from the radiation position to the scintillator (Paragraph 28 – R2 Distance from the subject H to the x-ray detector), and R [ m] represents a focal diameter of the X-ray radiation device:
Formula (1): (L2 - L1) x R/L1 (Paragraph 24, 26 – Shows the geometric sharpness formula where R2 is L2-L1, R1 is L1, D is R)
Regarding claim 6, Kiyohara teaches the X-ray inspection device according to claim 1, wherein the imaging device is a line sensor camera or a time delay integration camera (Paragraph 23- Slit Camera).
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.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyohara (JP2008259688 A; October 30, 2008).
Regarding claim 2, Kiyohara teaches the X-ray inspection device according to claim 1. Kiyohara does not explicitly teach wherein imaging resolution of the imaging device for imaging the scintillator is 60 m or less.
However, it would have been obvious at the time filing to specify the abovementioned limitation since the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyohara (JP2008259688 A; October 30, 2008) in view of Sugiyama (US 2020/0292718 A1; September 17, 2020).
Regarding claim 3, Kiyohara teaches the X-ray inspection device according to claim 1. Kiyohara further does not teach wherein the imaging device is installed so as to image a facing surface that is included in the scintillator and that faces the inspected object.
Sugiyama wherein the imaging device (Figure 2 Element 3A; Paragraph 37) is installed so as to image a facing surface (Figure 2 Element 6a; Paragraph 37) that is included in the scintillator (Figure 2 Element 6 ; Paragraph 37) and that faces the inspected object (Figure 2 Element A).
Therefore, from the teaching of Sugiyama, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation since it a known imaging method that allows for increased detection efficiency by imaging the light from the first surface rather than after its passed through the entire thickness of the scintillator.
Regarding claim 4, Kiyohara in view of Sugiyama teaches the X-ray inspection device according to claim 3. Kiyohara wherein the inspected object is a light transmissive object (Figure 1 Element H).
Sugiyama further teaches the imaging device is installed so as to image the facing surface (Figure 2 Element 6a) of the scintillator (Figure 2 Element 6) via the inspected object (Figure 2 Element A), the facing surface facing the inspected object (Paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 5, Kiyohara teaches the X-ray inspection device according to claim 1. Kiyohara does not explicitly teach wherein the imaging device is installed so as to image an opposite surface that is included in the scintillator and that is opposite to the facing surface facing the inspected object.
Sugiyama wherein the imaging device (Figure 2 Element 3A; Paragraph 37) is installed so as to image an opposite surface (Figure 2 Element 6a; Paragraph 37) that is included in the scintillator (Figure 2 Element 6 ; Paragraph 37) and that is opposite to the facing surface (Figure 2 Top face of scintillator Element 6a) facing the inspected object (Figure 2 Element A ; Paragraph 37 - a camera (image capturing means) 3 that captures an image of scintillation light output from an input surface 6a of the scintillator 6).
Therefore, from the teaching of Sugiyama, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation since it a known imaging method that allows for increased detection efficiency by imaging the light from the first surface rather than after its passed through the entire thickness of the scintillator.
Claims 7 and 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyohara (JP2008259688 A; October 30, 2008) in view of Sugiyama (US 2020/0292718 A1; September 17, 2020) in view of Urano (20140328459 1; November 6, 2014).
Regarding claim 7, Kiyohara in view of Sugiyama teaches the X-ray inspection device according to claim 3. Kiyohara further teaches wherein the imaging device is a line sensor camera or a time delay integration camera (Paragraph 23).
Sugiyama further teaches the imaging device(Figure 2 Element 3A; Paragraph 37) is installed between the installation position or the conveyance position of the inspected object (Figure 2 Element A) and the scintillator (Figure 2 Element 6; Paragraph 37).
Therefore, from the teaching of Sugiyama, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation since it a known imaging method that allows for increased detection efficiency by imaging the light from the first surface rather than after its passed through the entire thickness of the scintillator.
Kiyohara in view of Sugiyama does not teach a member configured to shield the X-ray incident on the scintillator in a region other than at least an imaged region of the scintillator imaged by the imaging device.
Urano teaches a member (Figure 11 Element 511 and 513 – aperture masks) configured to shield the X-ray incident on the detector in a region other than at least an imaged region of the detector imaged by the imaging device (Paragraph 67- On the top and bottom of a scintillator 512, there are arranged aperture masks 511 and 513).
Therefore, from the teaching of Urano, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation in order to allow for only the light passing through the aperture thereby allowing increased control and efficiency of the detection.
Regarding claim 8, Kiyohara in view of Sugiyama teaches the X-ray inspection device according to claim 5. Kiyohara further teaches wherein the imaging device is a line sensor camera or a time delay integration camera (Paragraph 23 – slit camera).
Kiyohara in view of Sugiyama does not teach a member that shields the X-ray incident on the scintillator in a region other than at least a facing region in a surface that is included in the scintillator and that faces the inspected object, the facing region being across the scintillator from an imaged region of the scintillator imaged by the imaging device, is installed between the installation position or the conveyance position of the inspected object and the scintillator.
Urano teaches a member (Figure 11 Element 511 and 513 – aperture masks) that shields the X-ray incident on the scintillator (Figure 10 Element 511) in a region other than at least a facing region in a surface that is included in the scintillator and that faces the inspected object (Paragraph 67- On the top and bottom of a scintillator 512, there are arranged aperture masks 511 and 513; Figure 10), the facing region being across the scintillator from an imaged region of the scintillator imaged by the imaging device, is installed between the installation position or the conveyance position of the inspected object and the scintillator (Paragraph 67- On the top and bottom of a scintillator 512, there are arranged aperture masks 511 and 513; Figure 10).
Therefore, from the teaching of Urano, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation in order to allow for only the light passing through the aperture through thereby allowing increased control and efficiency of the detection.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 13, 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyohara (JP2008259688 A; October 30, 2008) in view of Urano (20140328459 1; November 6, 2014).
Regarding claim 9, Kiyohara teaches an X-ray inspection method comprising:
emitting an X-ray (Figure 1 Element 2) toward an inspected object;
causing the emitted X-ray (Figure 1 Element 31) to be incident on a scintillator via the inspected object to convert the emitted X-ray into visible light by the scintillator (Paragraph 31- scintillators); and
collecting the visible light emitted from the scintillator using an optical unit to capture an image (Figure 1 Element 32; Paragraphs 24, 28 – xray detector), wherein
a radiation position of the X-ray and a position of the scintillator are set such that the following formula (1) where L1 [mm] represents a distance from the radiation position of the X- ray to the inspected object (Paragraph 28- R1+R2 Distance from the x-ray tube to the x-ray detector), L2 [mm] represents a distance from the radiation position to the scintillator (Paragraph 28 – R2 Distance from the subject H to the x-ray detector), and R [ m] represents a focal diameter (Paragraph 28 – D is R) of the X-ray at the radiation position of the X-ray:
Formula (1): (L2 - L1) x R/L1 (Paragraph 24, 26 – Shows the geometric sharpness formula where R2 is L2-L1, R1 is L1, D is R).
Kiyohara does not teach the following formula (1) is one sixth or less of a minimum diameter of a defect to be detected defined for each inspected object.
Urano teaches the value of the blur formula is less than the diameter of a defect to be detected defined for each inspected object (Paragraph 47 – detected object is 50 µm and the blur is 36 µm).
Kiyohara in view of Urano does not teach formula (1) is one sixth or less of a minimum diameter of a defect to be detected defined for each inspected object.
However, it has been held that optimization within the prior art condition or through routine experimentation do not support patentability.
In re Aller states “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Therefore at the time of filing it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the optimum blur value formula (1) is one sixth or less of a minimum diameter of a defect to be detected defined for each inspected object in order to achieve optimal detection results.
Regarding claim 10, Kiyohara in view of Urano teaches the X-ray inspection method according to claim 9. Urano further teaches the relationship the diameter of the detected object, the size of the blur, and resolution of the scintillator (Paragraphs 47-48).
Kiyohara in view of Urano does not explicitly teach wherein imaging resolution for imaging the scintillator is one third or less of the minimum diameter of the defect to be detected defined for each inspected object.
However, it has been held that optimization within the prior art condition or through routine experimentation do not support patentability.
In re Aller states “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Therefore at the time of filing it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the wherein imaging resolution for imaging the scintillator is one third or less of the minimum diameter of the defect to be detected defined for each inspected object. in order to achieve optimal detection results.
Regarding claim 13, Kiyohara in view of Urano teaches the X-ray inspection method according to claim 9. Kiyohara further teaches further comprising imaging an opposite surface that is included in the scintillator (Figure 1 Element 31) and that is opposite to the facing surface facing the inspected object (Figure 1 Element H) (Seen in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Kiyohara in view of Urano teaches the X-ray inspection method according to claim 9. Kiyohara further teaches further comprising imaging the scintillator linearly (Paragraph 23-24 – slit detector). Urano also teaches a TDI camera (Paraph 50 Element 303 and 304)
Claim(s) 11, 12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyohara (JP2008259688 A; October 30, 2008) in view of Urano (20140328459 1; November 6, 2014) in view of Sugiyama (US 2020/0292718 A1; September 17, 2020).
Regarding claim 11, Kiyohara in view of Urano teaches the X-ray inspection method according to claim 9. Kiyohara does not teach further comprising imaging a facing surface that is included in the scintillator and that faces the inspected object.
Sugiyama teaches imaging a facing surface (Figure 2 Element 6a) that is included in the scintillator (Figure 2 Element 6) and that faces the inspected object (Figure2 Element 6a). (Paragraph 37 - a camera (image capturing means) 3 that captures an image of scintillation light output from an input surface 6a of the scintillator 6,)
Therefore, from the teaching of Sugiyama, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation since it a known imaging method that allows for increased detection efficiency by imaging the light from the first surface rather than after its passed through the entire thickness of the scintillator.
Regarding claim 12, Kiyohara in view of Urano in view of Sugiyamo teaches the X-ray inspection method according to claim 11. Kiyohara further teaches wherein the inspected object is a light transmissive object (Figure 1 Element H – Paragraph 27).
Kiyohara in view Urano does not teach the X-ray inspection method further comprises imaging the facing surface of the scintillator via the inspected object, the facing surface facing the inspected object.
Sugiyama teaches the X-ray inspection method further comprises imaging the facing surface (Figure 2 Element 6a) of the scintillator via the inspected object (Figure 2 Element A), the facing surface facing the inspected object. (Paragraph 37 - a camera (image capturing means) 3 that captures an image of scintillation light output from an input surface 6a of the scintillator 6)
Therefore, from the teaching of Sugiyama, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation since it a known imaging method that allows for increased detection efficiency by imaging the light from the first surface rather than after it passed through the entire thickness of the scintillator.
Regarding claim 15, Kiyohara in view Urano in view of Sugiyama teaches the X-ray inspection method according to claim 11. Kiyohara further teaches imaging the scintillator linearly. (Paragraph 23 – slit detector).
Kiyohara does not teach shielding the X-ray incident on the scintillator in a region other than at least a region where the scintillator is imaged.
Urano further teaches shielding the X-ray incident on the scintillator in a region other than at least a region where the scintillator is imaged. (Figure 11 Element 511, 513 – On the top and bottom of a scintillator 512, there are arranged aperture masks 511 and 513).
Therefore, from the teaching of Urano, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation in order to reduce scatter of the light passing through the aperture thereby increasing efficiency of the detection.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyohara (JP2008259688 A; October 30, 2008) in view of Urano (20140328459 1; November 6, 2014).
Regarding claim 16, Kiyohara teaches the X-ray inspection method according to claim 13. Kiyohara further teaches imaging the scintillator linearly (Paragraph 23- slit detector).
Kiyohara does not teach shielding the X-ray incident on the scintillator in a region other than at least a facing region in a surface that is included in the scintillator and that faces the inspected object, the facing region being across the scintillator from a region where the scintillator is imaged.
Urano teaches shielding (Figure 11 Element 511, 513 –aperture masks) the X-ray incident on the scintillator in a region other than at least a facing region in a surface that is included in the scintillator and that faces the inspected object, the facing region being across the scintillator from a region where the scintillator is imaged. (Figure 11 Element 511, 513 – On the top and bottom of a scintillator 512, there are arranged aperture masks 511 and 513).
Therefore, from the teaching of Urano, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation in order to reduce scatter of the light passing through the aperture thereby increasing efficiency of the detection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-US 20160041110 teaches an x-ray transmission device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISSELLE GUTIERREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00PM.
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.
/GISSELLE GUTIERREZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights