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 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-20
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the region of the fan beam” (recited at the end of the claim) in the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(e). Both a “central region” and a “peripheral region” are previously recited, and considering Applicant’s Figure 2, Examiner has considered --[[the]] a corresponding region of the fan beam--.
The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Claims 2-14
Regarding claims 2-14, the claims are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claims 3-5, 9, and 20
Regarding claims 3-5, 9, and 20, the claims further recite the indefinite term “substantially”. See the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the region of the fan beam” (recited at the end of the claim) in the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(e). Considering Applicant’s Figure 2, Examiner has considered --[[the]] a corresponding region of the fan beam--.
Claims 16-19
Regarding claims 16-19, the claims are rejected due to their dependence on claim 15.
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 1-5, 7, 12-13, 15-17, and 20
Claims 1-5, 7, 12-13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasov (US 2016/0073982 A1).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Sasov discloses an x-ray system (10) comprising: a source (11) configured to emit a fan beam (1; fan shape shown in Fig. 2) of x-ray energy along a beam path (along central beam axis z); a filter (2) disposed in the beam path, the filter (2) including a first thickness (at edges 12-13) positioned in a substantially peripheral region (edges) of the fan beam (1), and a second thickness (at center 4) positioned in a substantially central region (center 4) of the fan beam (1), the first thickness (at edges 12-13) being different than (i.e., less than) the second thickness (at center 4); and a detector array (15) including a plurality of detectors, the detector array configured to detect the x-ray energy transmitted through the filter (2), wherein the x-ray energy strikes each detector at an angle associated with a corresponding region of the fan beam (as seen in Fig. 2; ¶¶ 42-54; Fig. 2).
Preamble recitation “for measuring a thickness of a material” merely states an intended use of the invention because no limitations pertaining to the preamble recitation are recited in the body of the claim. Accordingly, the preamble recitation is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02(II).
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Sasov discloses the x-ray system of claim 1, wherein the first thickness (at edges 12-13) is less than the second thickness (at center 4; ¶¶ 42-54; Fig. 2; see rejection of claim 1 above; ¶ 46: “The filter element 2 has a variable local thickness d … with its maximum thickness at its center 4 … The thickness d decreases symmetrically towards the sides, and minimum thicknesses are reached at the edges 12, 13”).
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Sasov discloses the x-ray system of claim 1, wherein the filter shapes a spectral energy profile across the substantially central region to the substantially peripheral region of the fan beam (¶¶ 42-54; Fig. 2; see rejection of claim 1 above; ¶ 47: “The peak thickness and the thickness distribution of the filter element 2 across the beam (in y direction) is chosen such that a significant cut of the low-energy part of X-ray spectrum in the central part of the beam is achieved”).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Sasov discloses the x-ray system of claim 1, wherein the filter shapes a signal intensity profile of the x-ray energy across the substantially central region to the substantially peripheral region of the fan beam (¶¶ 42-54; Fig. 2; see rejection of claim 1 above; ¶ 45: “spatial modulation of the energy spectrum and the intensity”).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Sasov discloses the x-ray system of claim 1, wherein the filter shapes a material thickness profile of the x-ray energy across the substantially central region to the substantially peripheral region of the fan beam (¶¶ 42-54; Fig. 2; see rejection of claim 1 above; ¶ 45: “Such a reduction of intensity in the primary beam may reduce the signal on the central part of the detector array behind the object, which in general will … be compensated during tomographical reconstruction, since the central part of the reconstructed area is covered by a more-consistence ray pattern during the back-projection procedure”).
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Sasov discloses the x-ray system of claim 1, wherein the filter (2) defines a cross-sectional shape that is concave, convex, asymmetric, stepped, layered, achromatic, or aspheric (i.e., at least aspheric as seen in Fig. 2; ¶¶ 42-54; Fig. 2; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Sasov discloses the x-ray system of claim 1, wherein the filter includes titanium, copper, aluminum, or any combinations thereof (i.e., aluminum; ¶ 48: “Al was used as a filter material”).
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Sasov discloses the x-ray system of claim 1, wherein the filter includes a ternary cathode material (i.e., aluminum; ¶ 48: “Al was used as a filter material”; by definition, an NCA cathode is a “ternary cathode” composed of nickel, cobalt, and aluminum; accordingly, aluminum can be considered a ternary cathode material).
Claims 15 and 20
Regarding claims 15 and 20, as best understood, see the rejection of claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 16-17
Regarding claims 16-17, as best understood, see the rejections of claims 4-5 above, respectively, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 1, 8-11, 14-15, and 19-20
Claims 1, 8-11, 14-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ichizawa (US 2011/0122993 A1).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Ichizawa discloses an x-ray system comprising: a source
(1) configured to emit a fan beam (B1) of x-ray energy along a beam path (path shown in Fig. 9); a filter (5) disposed in the beam path, the filter (5) including a first thickness positioned in a substantially peripheral region of the fan beam, and a second thickness positioned in a substantially central region of the fan beam, the first thickness being different than the second thickness (¶ 9: “a flux shield 5 which is formed stepwise to be thicker in the central portion”; the different thickness can be seen in Fig. 2); and a detector array (4) including a plurality of detectors (necessarily present in a line sensor), the detector array (4) configured to detect the x-ray energy transmitted through the filter (5), wherein the x-ray energy strikes each detector at an angle associated with a corresponding region of the fan beam (¶¶ 2-11; Fig. 9).
Preamble recitation “for measuring a thickness of a material” merely states an intended use of the invention because no limitations pertaining to the preamble recitation are recited in the body of the claim. Accordingly, the preamble recitation is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02(II). For completeness, Ichizawa discloses the intended use in paragraph 4: “a film thickness measurement of a specimen can be performed”.
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Ichizawa discloses the x-ray system of claim 1, wherein the filter (5) includes a plurality of layers (¶ 11: “flux shield 5 … may have a structure in which a larger number of thin sheets are laminated in the central portion” see the configuration in Fig. 9).
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Ichizawa discloses the x-ray system of claim 1, wherein the filter (5) includes a cross-sectional shape having stepped lateral edges, and wherein a thickness of the filter is greatest at the substantially center region of the filter (¶ 11: “flux shield 5 … may have a structure in which a larger number of thin sheets are laminated in the central portion” see the configuration in Fig. 9).
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Ichizawa discloses the x-ray system of claim 1. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP § 2113(I). Accordingly, as the further limitations of claim 10 are directed only to process steps, Ichizawa anticipates the claimed invention. For completeness, Ichizawa discloses the process steps wherein the filter is formed by folding, layering, or 3D printing processes (i.e., layering; ¶ 11: “flux shield 5 … may have a structure in which a larger number of thin sheets are laminated in the central portion” see the configuration in Fig. 9).
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Ichizawa discloses the x-ray system of claim 1, wherein the filter (5) includes at least a first layer (resin base) including a first material (resin) and a second layer (deposited metal) including a second material (metal) different from the first material (¶¶ 2-11; Fig. 9; see rejection of claim 1 above; ¶ 10: “the flux shield 5 is … a composite material having a resin base material deposited with metal”).
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Ichizawa discloses the x-ray system of claim 1, wherein the filter includes a synthetic material (¶ 11: “The material of the flux shield 5 is … a resin material such as a PET or acrylic plate”).
Claims 15 and 20
Regarding claims 15 and 20, as best understood, see the rejection of claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 19
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, see the rejections of claims 8 and 11 above, respectively, mutatis mutandis.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Claims 6 and 18
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sasov as applied to claims 1 and 15 above.
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Sasov discloses the x-ray system of claim 1, wherein the fan beam has an angular extent (as can be seen in Fig. 2) but does not expressly disclose the angular extent is 90 degrees. However, where 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. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Therefore, 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 have modified the invention of Sasov so that the angular extent is 90 degrees.
One would have been motivated to do so to achieve a desired angular coverage.
Claim 18
Regarding claim 18, see the rejection of claim 6 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 6 and 18
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichizawa as applied to claims 1 and 15 above.
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Ichizawa discloses the x-ray system of claim 1, wherein the fan beam has an angular extent (as can be seen in Fig. 9) but does not expressly disclose the angular extent is 90 degrees. However, where 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. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Therefore, 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 have modified the invention of Ichizawa so that the angular extent is 90 degrees.
One would have been motivated to do so to achieve a desired angular coverage.
Claim 18
Regarding claim 18, see the rejection of claim 6 above, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ghazikhanian (US 2020/0240776 A1) discloses an x-ray radiation-based thickness gauge (Abstract; ¶¶ 2-13).
Hsieh (US 2003/0185345 A1) discloses an x-ray filter having varying thickness (claim 4).
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
Prosecution Insights