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 1-7, 17-20, 22-24, 39-41 and 44 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 6, 17-20, 22-23, 39-41 and 44 are currently amended; claims 2 and 24 are original; claims 3-5 and 7 are previously presented; claims 8-16, 21, 25-38 and 42-43 are canceled.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7, 17-20 and 22 are objected to under 37 C.F.R. 1.71(a) which requires “full, clear, concise, and exact terms” as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same. The following should be corrected.
A. In claim 1 line 6, “non-monochromatic radiation” should read “the non-monochromatic radiation” instead because non-monochromatic radiation is already introduced in line 2. Claims 2-7, 17-20 and 22 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 by reason of dependence.
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
Claims 1-7, 17-20, 22-24, 39-41 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the at least one radiation source” in line 7. It is unclear which radiation source the reference is made. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as the least one source of non-monochromatic radiation. Claim 3 recites a similar limitation in line 2 and is rejected for the same reason. Claims 2-7, 17-20 and 22 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 by reason of dependence.
Further, claim 1 recites “the respective photon detector element” in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous recitation of a respective photon detector element. Claims 19, 22, 23, 41 and 44 recite a similar limitation in line 3, 3, 13, 2 and 3 respectively and rejected for the same reason. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as a respective photon detector element instead in claims 1 and 23. Claims 2-7, 17-20 and 22 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 by reason of dependence. Claim 20 inherit the same deficiency as claim 19 by reason of dependence. Claims 24, 39-41 and 44 inherit the same deficiency as claim 23 by reason of dependence.
Claim 2 recites “the radiation source” in line 4. It is unclear which radiation source the reference is made. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as the least one source of non-monochromatic radiation. Claim 24 recites a similar limitation in line 3 and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 7 recites “the received radiation” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous limitation of receiving a radiation. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted to refer to the received photons of the non-monochromatic radiation recited in claim 1 lines 3-4.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the one or more photon detector elements are configured such that each generated output value corresponds to a number of photons received by the respective photon detector element, and wherein the system is configured such that, in a single exposure period of the one or more photon detector elements, there are fewer unique digital values available than the number of photons received by at least one of the one or more photon detector elements”. Claim 1 from which claim 19 recites “wherein the one or more photon detector elements are configured such that each output value corresponds to a cumulative energy of the photons received by the respective photon detector element within a pre-set period of time”. It is unclear whether the one or more photon detector elements can be configured such that that each output value corresponds to a cumulative energy of the photons received by the respective photon detector element within a pre-set period of time and such that each generated output value corresponds to a number of photons received by the respective photon detector element, and wherein the system is configured such that, in a single exposure period of the one or more photon detector elements, there are fewer unique digital values available than the number of photons received by at least one of the one or more photon detector elements. The specification, see at least paragraph [0120] discloses that these one or more photon detector elements configuration are alternative configurations depending on the type of photon detector elements. Therefore, it is unclear whether the same photon detector elements can be configured in both ways. Claim 41 recites substantially the same limitations and is rejected for the same reason. Claim 20 inherit the same deficiency as claim 19 by reason of dependence.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 19-20 and 41 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the one or more photon detector elements are configured such that each generated output value corresponds to a number of photons received by the respective photon detector element”. Claim 19 fails to include all the limitations of claim 1 upon which it depends because claim 1 requires that “wherein the one or more photon detector elements are configured such that each output value corresponds to a cumulative energy of the photons received by the respective photon detector element within a pre-set period of time”, however, claim 19 appears to be replacing the one or more photon detector elements configuration such that the one or more photon detector elements are configured such that each generated output value corresponds to a number of photons received by the respective photon detector element instead of wherein the one or more photon detector elements are configured such that each output value corresponds to a cumulative energy of the photons received by the respective photon detector element within a pre-set period of time. The specification, see at least paragraph [0120] discloses that these one or more photon detector elements configuration are alternative configurations depending on the type of photon detector elements. Therefore, it is not apparent that the same photon detector elements can be configured in both ways. Claim 41 recites substantially the same limitations and is rejected for the same reason. Claim 20 inherit the same deficiency as claim 19 by reason of dependence.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 17-20, 22-24, 39-41 and 44 be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections discussed above, and if claims 19-20 and 41 are rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection discussed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Examiner is persuaded and adopts Applicant’s arguments (see remarks page 9-14 submitted on 01/08/2026) that none of the prior art references cited explicitly teach or suggest “wherein the one or more photon detector elements are configured such that each output value corresponds to a cumulative energy of the photons received by the respective photon detector element within a pre-set period of time” as recited in claim 1; and “wherein each output value corresponds to a cumulative energy of the photons received by the respective photon detector element within a pre-set period of time” as recited in claim 23.
Response to Arguments
In view of amendments made, the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
The amendments made has not addressed all the objection to the claims raised in the non-final office action submitted on 08/08/2025 as discussed above.
The amendments made has not addressed all the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to the claims raised in the non-final office action submitted on 08/08/2025. Further, the amendments made raise new clarity issues as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 9-15, filed 01/08/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) rejection of claims 1-4, 6-7, 17-20, 22-24, 39-41 and 44 as well as the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) rejection of claims 1-4, 6-7, 17-20, 22-24, 39-41 and 44 as well as the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlo Waje whose telephone number is (571)272-5767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 M-F.
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, James Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
/Carlo Waje/Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-5767