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 .
Claims 1 – 8 are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vermandel et al. (US 2012/0201438 A1; pub. Aug. 9, 2012) in view of Ren et al. (CN203763103U; pub. Aug. 13, 2014).
Regarding claim 1, Vermandel et al. disclose: A test phantom for evaluating electromagnetic radiation images (fig.1), comprising:
a plurality of layer bodies (fig.1 & 5 item 10, para. [0048]) stacked one upon another to form stacked layer bodies, wherein an area of each of the plurality of layer bodies (fig.1 & 5 item 10, para. [0048]) gradually increases from top to bottom of the stacked layer bodies (para. [0049]), and each of the plurality of layer bodies has an exposed region on an upper surface thereof (para. [0048]-[0049]); and;
a plurality of recess portions formed by recessing the exposed regions of the upper surfaces of at least two of the plurality of layer bodies (para. [0051]).
Vermandel et al. are silent about: the recess portions located on different layer bodies cause different degrees of attenuation to electromagnetic radiation passing therethrough.
In a similar field of endeavor Ren et al. disclose: the recess portions located on different layer bodies cause different degrees of attenuation to electromagnetic radiation passing therethrough (para. [0017], the para. teach the thickness of the calibration plate is directly proportional to the diameter of the through hole, while the linear attenuation coefficient of the calibration plate is inversely proportional to the thickness of the plate, therefore the limitation is obvious in light of the teachings of para. [0017]) motivated by the benefits for improved correction and therefore improved imaging (Ren et al. para. [0004]-[0005]).
In light of the benefits for improved correction and therefore improved imaging as taught by Ren et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Vermandel et al. with the teachings of Ren et al.
Regarding claim 2, Vermandel et al. disclose: the test phantom has a centroid in a viewing direction, and the plurality of recess portions is symmetrically arranged or is distributed in a ring array around the centroid in the viewing direction (para. [0051], fig.5).
Regarding claim 3, Vermandel et al. disclose: after stacking, each of the plurality of layer bodies renders an outline of the test phantom to be symmetrically arranged or to be distributed in a ring array around a centroid of the test phantom in a viewing direction (para. [0051], fig.5).
Regarding claim 6, Vermandel et al. disclose: each of the plurality of recess portions is a through-hole (para. [0060]-[0061]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: in each two adjacent layer bodies, with each of which having at least one of the plurality of recess portions, a radial length of one or more of the at least one of the plurality of recess portions in a lower one of the two adjacent layer bodies is not less than a radial length of any of the at least one of the plurality of recess portions in an upper one of the two adjacent layer bodies.
Regarding claim 5, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: in each two adjacent layer bodies, with each of which having at least one of the plurality of recess portions, a radial length of one or more of the at least one of the plurality of recess portions in a lower one of the two adjacent layer bodies is greater than a radial length of any of the at least one of the plurality of recess portions in an upper one of the two adjacent layer bodies.
Regarding claim 7, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: one of the plurality of layer bodies has a plurality of recess portions with different radial lengths, and the radial lengths are arranged according to the Fibonacci sequence.
Regarding claim 8, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: a bottommost layer body in the plurality of layer bodies has a metal ring disposed around an outer periphery thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights