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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanderson EP 0232056.
Regarding claim 1, Sanderson discloses a welding system (fig. 1, 4) comprising an evacuatable welding chamber (27; pg. 15 ln. 1-3), an electron beam gun (3) connected to the welding chamber (fig. 1; chamber not shown), a control system (22, 24, 39, 40, 42-45) to modify the direction of an electron beam generated by the electron beam gun (abstract; pg. 14 ln. 10-20; pg. 15 ln. 20-34; pg. 18 ln. 13-19) and a detector for acquiring X-ray images (66; page 20, lines 13-19; claim 13), wherein first and second X-ray sources are positioned proximal a weld site within the welding chamber (pg. 20 ln. 6-12; the tube 65 is multi-segmented, see fig. 4 and fig. 1 61 and 59; claim 14), the first X-ray source emitting X-rays in a first direction through the weld site and the second X-ray source emitting X-rays in a second direction through the weld site, the first and second directions being substantially orthogonal to each other (the tube 65 is circular therefore there exists at least 2 segments which generate x-rays in two orthogonal directions).
Regarding claim 2, Sanderson discloses wherein the second X-ray source is positioned orthogonally to the first X-ray source (the tube 65 is circular therefore there exists at least 2 segments which are orthogonal).
Regarding claim 3, Sanderson discloses wherein the control system is configured to synchronize acquisition of X-ray images of the weld site by the detector with periodic generation of X-rays by the first and second X-ray sources (pg. 20 ln. 1-19; claim 13; the control system controls the electron beam which is also used to generate x-rays on the x-ray source therefore it is synchronized).
Regarding claim 4, Sanderson discloses wherein the first and second X-ray sources are responsive to an incident electron beam to generate X-rays (pg. 20 ln. 1-19; claim 13).
Regarding claim 5, Sanderson discloses wherein the first and second X-ray sources are formed from Tungsten (pg. 20 ln. 1-19).
Regarding claim 7, A welding system according to claim 1, wherein the first and second X-ray sources comprise at least one inclined face so as to direct X-rays through the weld site (pg. 20 ln. 1-19; claim 13; annular surfaces are inclined).
Regarding claim 11, Sanderson discloses wherein the weld site comprises materials capable of penetration by low energy X-rays (pg. 20 ln. 1-19; claim 13).
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.
Claims 6, 8-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanderson EP 0232056.
Regarding claim 6, Sanderson does not specifically disclose wherein the first and second X-ray sources are positioned 1 to 5mm from the weld site. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to recited range (1 to 5mm) through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention to have wherein the first and second X-ray sources are positioned 1 to 5mm from the weld site in the system of Sanderson for the purpose of optimizing image resolution.
Regarding claim 8, Sanderson does not explicitly disclose wherein the detector comprises at least one input located within the welding chamber and at least one detector element located outside the welding chamber., however, it has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 9, Sanderson does not explicitly disclose wherein the detector comprises one input associated with the first X-ray source and another input associated with the second X-ray source (a detector, see claim 13, implies some input(s) but does not discloses that each input is associated with each segment of the tube which generates x-rays), however, it has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 12, Sanderson does not specifically disclose wherein the weld site has a thickness in the range 1 to 3mm. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to recited range (1 to 3mm) through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention to have wherein the weld site has a thickness in the range 1 to 3mm in the system of Sanderson for the purpose of ensuring the site is imageable by the x-ray source.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanderson EP 0232056 in view of Lampert US 3602686.
Regarding claim 10, Sanderson fails to teach wherein an apertured shim is positioned between the input and the weld site.
Lempert teaches wherein an apertured shim (fig. 2 79, 81) is positioned between the input and the weld site (col. 5 ln. 8-15) for the purpose of ensuring the imaged area is the portion which has been welded (col. 5 ln. 8-15).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein an apertured shim is positioned between the input and the weld site as taught by Lempert in the system of Sanderson for the purpose of ensuring the imaged area is the portion which has been welded.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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 on (571)272-2995. The fax number for the organization where this application or processing 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.
/RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights