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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 25 August 2025. These drawings are not acceptable.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 15 and 30. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(a) in claim 1, “collimators;” on the last line should probably be --collimators.-- (i.e., each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period; see MPEP § 608.01(m)); and
(b) in claim 3, “cabinet;” on the last line should probably be --cabinet.-- (i.e., each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period; see MPEP § 608.01(m)).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”. Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… the x-ray tube 10 may have a standard focal spot, for example, 50 micron, or a micro-focus focal spot, for example, 5 microns …” in paragraph 59) serves as a glossary for the claim term “a conventional, mini-focus, or micro-focus x-ray source”.
The specification (e.g., see “… Low density material such as air is represented as black on the normal X-ray or radiograph image. Very dense material such as metal or contrast material is represented as white. Bodily tissues are varying degrees of gray, depending on density, and thickness …” in paragraph 71) serves as a glossary for the claim term “density”.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the x-ray fluorescence detector” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the optical camera system” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “an optical image” in line 7. There is unclear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the x-ray detector” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the density x-ray image” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the spectral x-ray image” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the x-ray detector” in lines 15 and 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the optical camera system” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the spectral x-ray image” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the optical image” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “mini-focus, or micro-focus x-ray source” in claim(s) 2 is/are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mini-focus, or micro-focus x-ray source” 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. The specification does not appear disclose any criteria for distinguishing “mini-focus, or micro-focus” from a focus that is not mini-focus or micro-focus.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also indefinite for the same reasons.
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 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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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 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.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (High-sensitivity micro-spot elemental analysis using a WDXRF spectrometer equipped with a polycapillary lens, The Rigaku Journal Vol. 26, no 1 (2010), pp. 12-15).
In regard to claim 10 in so far as understood, Yamada discloses a method for obtaining x-ray images and colorized or grey scale density x-ray images of a specimen using a cabinet x-ray image system, wherein the cabinet x-ray image system comprises: a cabinet defining an interior chamber wherein the cabinet comprises a walled enclosure surrounding the interior chamber, a door configured to cover the interior chamber and a sampling chamber for containing the specimen (e.g., see Fig. 1 captioned with “Rigaku WDXRF spectrometer system equipped with a polycapillary lens for micro-spot elemental analysis.”); a display (e.g., see Fig. 5 captioned with “Analysis position shown by an electronic camera.” caption); an x-ray system including: an x-ray source; a photon-counting detector (e.g., see “… Detector …” in Fig. 2 and “… two detectors (SC and F-PC) …” in section 2); and a specimen platform (e.g., see “… a r-θ sample stage together with a high-resolution camera for observing and positioning a sample for an 100-μm spot-size XRF measurement …” in Fig. 2 and section 2); and a controller, wherein the method comprises using the controller to:
(a) selectively energize the x-ray source (e.g., see “… X-ray tube …” in Fig. 2) to emit x-rays through the specimen to the x-ray detector (e.g., see “… Detector …” in Fig. 2);
(b) control the detector (e.g., see “… Detector …” in Fig. 2) to collect a projection x-ray image of the specimen when the x-ray source (e.g., see “… X-ray tube …” in Fig. 2) is energized;
(c) determine the density of different areas of the specimen from data collected from the detector of the projection x-ray image of the specimen when the x-ray source is energized (e.g., see “… electronic camera was used to direct and observed the analysis position on the gold-coated terminal (Fig. 5). A qualitative analysis was carried out with a high-energy-type polycapillary lens (spot size: 100 μm in diameter) and a LiF (200) analyzing crystal. As shown in Fig. 6, XRF peaks for Ni, Cu and Au were detected. The structure of the gold-coated terminal is Au (top layer)/Ni (middle layer)/Cu (substrate). A thickness analysis for the Au and Ni layers was performed using the fundamental parameter method for thin films. The thicknesses of the Au and Ni layers were determined to be 73 nm and 5.9 μm, respectively. The Au-Lα;, Ni-Kα; and Cu-Kα; X-rays mapping images are shown in Fig. 7 …” in Fig. 6, Fig. 7, and section 5.1);
(d) create a density x-ray image of the specimen wherein the different areas of the specimen are indicated as a density or range of densities based on the determined density of different areas of the specimen (e.g., see “… thickness analysis for the Au and Ni layers was performed using the fundamental parameter method for thin films. The thicknesses of the Au and Ni layers were determined to be 73 nm and 5.9 μm, respectively. The Au-Lα;, Ni-Kα; and Cu-Kα; X-rays mapping images are shown in Fig. 7 …” in Fig. 7 and section 5.1); and
(e) selectively display the density x-ray image of the specimen on the display (e.g., see Fig. 7).
In regard to claim 11 which is dependent on claim 10 in so far as understood, Yamada also discloses that the cabinet x-ray image system further includes an optical camera (e.g., see “… Camera(1) …” in Fig. 2) configured to capture an optical image of the specimen (e.g., see “… a r-θ sample stage together with a high-resolution camera for observing and positioning a sample for an 100-μm spot-size XRF measurement …” in Fig. 2 and section 2), and the method further comprising using the controller to: control the optical camera to capture and collect the optical image of the specimen; and selectively display the density x-ray image and the optical image of the specimen on the display (e.g., see “… electronic camera was used to direct and observed the analysis position on the gold-coated terminal (Fig. 5). A qualitative analysis was carried out with a high-energy-type polycapillary lens (spot size: 100 μm in diameter) and a LiF (200) analyzing crystal. As shown in Fig. 6, XRF peaks for Ni, Cu and Au were detected. The structure of the gold-coated terminal is Au (top layer)/Ni (middle layer)/Cu (substrate). A thickness analysis for the Au and Ni layers was performed using the fundamental parameter method for thin films. The thicknesses of the Au and Ni layers were determined to be 73 nm and 5.9 μm, respectively. The Au-Lα;, Ni-Kα; and Cu-Kα; X-rays mapping images are shown in Fig. 7 …” in Fig. 6, Fig. 7, and section 5.1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (High-sensitivity micro-spot elemental analysis using a WDXRF spectrometer equipped with a polycapillary lens, The Rigaku Journal Vol. 26, no 1 (2010), pp. 12-15) in view of Yellepeddi et al. (US 2012/0294418).
In regard to claim 1 in so far as understood, Yamada discloses a cabinet x-ray image system for obtaining x-ray fluorescence images of a specimen or sample, the system comprising:
(a) a cabinet defining an interior chamber wherein the cabinet comprises a walled enclosure surrounding the interior chamber (e.g., see Fig. 1 captioned with “Rigaku WDXRF spectrometer system equipped with a polycapillary lens for micro-spot elemental analysis.”),
(b) a door configured to cover the interior chamber and a sampling chamber for containing the specimen (e.g., see Fig. 1 captioned with “Rigaku WDXRF spectrometer system equipped with a polycapillary lens for micro-spot elemental analysis.”);
(c) a display (e.g., see Fig. 5 captioned with “Analysis position shown by an electronic camera.”);
(d) an x-ray fluorescence system including: an x-ray source (e.g., see “… As shown in Fig. 2, The main features of the newly-developed Rigaku WDXRF spectrometer include a 4-kW rhodium-target end-window tube for high intensities …” in Fig. 2 and section 2); a crystal (e.g., see “… Analyzing crystal …” in Fig. 2); focusing coils or collimators (e.g., see “… Slit …” in Fig. 2); a fluorescence detector (e.g., see “… Detector …” in Fig. 2); and a specimen platform (e.g., see “… a r-θ sample stage together with a high-resolution camera for observing and positioning a sample for an 100-μm spot-size XRF measurement …” in Fig. 2 and section 2); and
(e) a controller configured to: selectively energize the x-ray source (e.g., see “… X-ray tube …” in Fig. 2) to emit x-rays through the specimen to the crystal (e.g., see “… Analyzing crystal …” in Fig. 2) and then through the focusing coils or collimators (e.g., see “… Slit …” in Fig. 2) to the fluorescence detector (e.g., see “… Detector …” in Fig. 2); and control the fluorescence detector to collect a spectra of the specimen when the x-ray source is energized (e.g., see “… electronic camera was used to direct and observed the analysis position on the gold-coated terminal (Fig. 5). A qualitative analysis was carried out with a high-energy-type polycapillary lens (spot size: 100 μm in diameter) and a LiF (200) analyzing crystal. As shown in Fig. 6, XRF peaks for Ni, Cu and Au were detected. The structure of the gold-coated terminal is Au (top layer)/Ni (middle layer)/Cu (substrate). A thickness analysis for the Au and Ni layers was performed using the fundamental parameter method for thin films. The thicknesses of the Au and Ni layers were determined to be 73 nm and 5.9 μm, respectively. The Au-Lα;, Ni-Kα; and Cu-Kα; X-rays mapping images are shown in Fig. 7 …” in Fig. 6, Fig. 7, and section 5.1).
While Yamada also discloses (section 1) that a “… wavelength dispersive X-ray fluorescence (WDXRF) spectrometer equipped with a high-energy-type polycapillary lens has recently been developed by Rigaku (Fig. 1)(1),(2) …”, the system of Yamada lacks an explicit description of details of the “… wavelength dispersive X-ray fluorescence (WDXRF) spectrometer …” such as the controller configured to control the focusing coils or collimators. However, “… WDXRF …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… WDXRF … apparatus 1 is typically (although not necessarily) housed inside a chamber (not shown) which can be evacuated and/or flushed with an appropriate gas in order to control the atmospheric environment as is known in the art of XRD and XRF … X-ray collimating elements preferably being positioned at angle θ to the surface of wavelength dispersive element. The collimating elements may be mounted on separate arms of a goniometer to enable angle θ and hence the selected wavelength to be varied. The detector would of course be mounted together with the detector collimating element on the same respective arm of the goniometer … X-ray detector may comprise any suitable X-ray detector for XRD and XRF known in the art … In XRF operating mode the variable wavelength selector scans through the range of wavelengths which the XRF spectrum is desired to cover, preferably by scanning angle θ, and sequentially selects the wavelengths for detection at the at least one X-ray detector … selection of wavelengths of X-rays by the wavelength selector for detection at an X-ray detector 16 can be achieved by different mechanisms. The angle θ at the wavelength dispersive element is variable to select different wavelengths. The invention preferably comprises a driver to vary the diffraction angle θ of the wavelength selector, i.e. the wavelength selector is moveable by a driver to select the wavelengths of X-rays. A driver herein refers to any driving means comprising one or more individual drivers, actuators or the like. Drivers are provided to drive any goniometer of the apparatus. For example, the angle between the collimator 14 and collimator 17 (and hence detector 16) at the crystal 12 can be varied (e.g. by mounting collimator 14 and collimator 17/detector 16 on separate arms of a goniometer) so that the diffraction angle θ at the flat crystal 12 is correspondingly varied …” in paragraphs 3, 54, and 59-61 of Yellepeddi et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional WDXRF (e.g., comprising details such as “a driver to vary the diffraction angle θ of the wavelength selector” and “collimating elements may be mounted on separate arms of a goniometer to enable angle θ and hence the selected wavelength to be varied”, in order to obtain a “XRF spectrum” over a desired 2θ degree range) for the unspecified WDXRF of Yamada and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional WDXRF (e.g., comprising details such as the controller configured to control the focusing coils or collimators) as the unspecified WDXRF of Yamada.
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1 in so far as understood, Yamada also discloses that the x-ray source comprises a conventional, mini-focus, or micro-focus x-ray source (e.g., “… an 100-μm spot-size XRF measurement …” in section 2).
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 1, Yamada also discloses that the detector comprises anything that fits within the confines of the cabinet (e.g., see Figs. 1 and 2).
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 1, Yamada also discloses that the specimen platform (e.g., see “… a r-θ sample stage together with a high-resolution camera for observing and positioning a sample for an 100-μm spot-size XRF measurement …” in Fig. 2 and section 2) is configured hold any organic or inorganic specimen or sample (e.g., see “… gold-coated terminal (Fig. 5) …” in Fig. 5 and section 5.1).
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1 in so far as understood, Yamada also discloses that the cabinet x-ray image system further includes an optical camera (e.g., see “… Camera(1) …” in Fig. 2) configured to capture an optical image of the specimen (e.g., see “… a r-θ sample stage together with a high-resolution camera for observing and positioning a sample for an 100-μm spot-size XRF measurement …” in Fig. 2 and section 2), and the controller is further configured to: control the optical camera to capture and collect the optical image of the specimen; and selectively display a spectral analysis image and the optical image of the specimen on the display (e.g., see Figs. 5 and 7).
In regard to claim 9 which is dependent on claim 1 in so far as understood, Yamada also discloses that different areas of the specimen or sample of a spectral x-ray image are displayed in different grey scale, different color or different shades of color (e.g., see Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Yellepeddi et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Zahler et al. (US 2020/0278346).
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 1, the system of Yamada lacks that the specimen platform is configured to hold excised tissue, organ or bone specimens. However, Zahler et al. teach (paragraph 94) that “… XRF spectrometry is a spectroscopic technique that can be used to determine one or more chemical elements (e.g., heavy metals) that are present in a sample, such as can be present in an analyte, a molecule, a polymer, a mineral, an organelle, a tissue, a biological fluid, an organ, an inorganic materials (e.g., clays, sands, silt, rocks and low organic containing soils), organic material (e.g., biomass such as plants, animals, insects, yeast, bacterial and/or high organic containing soil) or other substrates …”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the specimen platform of Yamada to hold “an organelle, a tissue, a biological fluid, an organ”, in order to “determine one or more chemical elements”.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Yellepeddi et al. as applied to claim(s) 6 above, and further in view of Tully et al. (US 2017/0115241).
In regard to claim 7 which is dependent on claim 6, the system of Yamada lacks that the spectral analysis image and the optical image of the specimen are displayed overlaid. However, Tully et al. teach (paragraphs 57, 61, and 63) that “… for each 2-D scan position, a Bayesian deconvolution is performed from an XRF image to determine element composition per 2-D scan position. The Bayesian deconvolution in 310 is performed to compensate for detector energy resolution. The true element compositions (each leaves a pattern of energies and intensities) in the X-Ray spectrum are desired. However, due to limited detector resolution, the detector provides a signal that may overlap contributions from one bin to another rather than the idealized scenario of a point beam and point sample … further iteration is performed on 2-D image contrast in elemental composition. Here, image contrast refers to the true spatial distribution per element … When there is a material determined in 310-316 that has no optical boundary associated with it (after trying to improve the optical boundary finding to look for this edge for finer color or brightness transition), then a boundary based not the X-Ray data alone is overlaid on the optical image …”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the spectral analysis and optical images of Yamada “overlaid”, in order to determine “boundary based not the X-Ray data alone”.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Yellepeddi et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2024/0280519).
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 1 in so far as understood, Yamada also discloses that the x-ray source is configured to emit a first amount of x-rays (e.g., see “… As shown in Fig. 2, The main features of the newly-developed Rigaku WDXRF spectrometer include a 4-kW rhodium-target end-window tube for high intensities … X-rays with energies up to 15 keV (Sr-Kα). While, the newly developed WDXRF system equipped with the new high-energy-type polycapillary lens can be used for X-rays with high energies up to 35 keV …” in Fig. 2 and sections 2 and 3), the fluorescence detector configured to detect a second amount of x-rays received by the fluorescence detector, and the controller is further configured to create a density x-ray from the fluorescence detector by comparing from the first amount of x-rays and the second amount of x-rays for fluorescence detector (e.g., see Fig. 3 captioned with “Comparison between the high-energy-type and the low-energy-type polycapillary lenses.” or alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a density x-ray for a low energy X-ray intensity (with a first a.u. by comparing the first and second amounts) and to create a density x-ray for a density x-ray for a high energy X-ray intensity (with a second a.u. by comparing the first and second amounts)). The system of Yamada lacks at least one additional fluorescence detector (which can be labeled as a plurality of pixels in an array). However, Liu et al. teach (paragraphs 7 and 88) that “… Wavelength dispersive analysis typically uses a photomultiplier. The X-ray photons of a single wavelength are selected from the incoming X-ray by a monochromator and are passed into the photomultiplier. The photomultiplier counts individual X-ray photons as they pass through. The counter is a chamber containing a gas that is ionizable by X-ray photons … detector 100 has many pixels 150 that may operate in parallel, the detector can handle much higher rate of incident X-ray photons. This is because the rate of incidence on a particular pixel 150 is 1/N of the rate of incidence on the entire array of pixels, where N is the number of pixels …”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of pixels in an array as the fluorescence detector of Yamada, in order to “handle much higher rate of incident X-ray photons” so as for the controller to create a density x-ray image by comparing from the first and second amount for each of the pixels.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (High-sensitivity micro-spot elemental analysis using a WDXRF spectrometer equipped with a polycapillary lens, The Rigaku Journal Vol. 26, no 1 (2010), pp. 12-15) in view of Tully et al. (US 2017/0115241).
In regard to claim 12 which is dependent on claim 10 in so far as understood, the method of Yamada lacks that a spectral x-ray image and an optical image of the specimen are displayed overlaid. However, Tully et al. teach (paragraphs 57, 61, and 63) that “… for each 2-D scan position, a Bayesian deconvolution is performed from an XRF image to determine element composition per 2-D scan position. The Bayesian deconvolution in 310 is performed to compensate for detector energy resolution. The true element compositions (each leaves a pattern of energies and intensities) in the X-Ray spectrum are desired. However, due to limited detector resolution, the detector provides a signal that may overlap contributions from one bin to another rather than the idealized scenario of a point beam and point sample … further iteration is performed on 2-D image contrast in elemental composition. Here, image contrast refers to the true spatial distribution per element … When there is a material determined in 310-316 that has no optical boundary associated with it (after trying to improve the optical boundary finding to look for this edge for finer color or brightness transition), then a boundary based not the X-Ray data alone is overlaid on the optical image …”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the spectral x-ray and optical images of Yamada “overlaid”, in order to determine “boundary based not the X-Ray data alone”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,646,178 teaches an x-ray imager.
US 10,921,265 teaches an x-ray imager.
US 11,162,909 teaches an x-ray imager.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights