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 .
This communication is responsive to amended application filed on 03/26/2026.
Claims 9-16 have been added.
Claims 1-16 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued:
PNG
media_image1.png
61
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
330
651
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Any purported improvement to a technology or technical field as direct consequence of the “mental process/mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself” (MPEP 2106.05(I)). Further, the claimed invention of “spatial dose rates measured” may fall under mere data gathering which is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Applicants argued:
PNG
media_image3.png
401
661
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation of “calculating the exposure dose of the working positioned” falls under mathematical concepts.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued:
PNG
media_image4.png
740
647
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner would like to direct applicants the following section of the prior art. Schantz et al discloses the newly added limitation as follows:
Abstract, providing a simulated total dose exposure measurement during a nuclear facility training exercise by locating participants using a real time location system, modeling incremental exposure as a function of location and summing incremental exposure to produce a total dose for each of the participants….Radiation sources may also have location tags and the exposure model may be modified in real time according to the tracked location of the radiation source.
[0031] Before each exercise, a trainer sets up one or more virtual radiation environment (VRE) configurations by defining simulated point, line, area, volume, and other sources of radiation throughout the training facility (see FIG. 5). The trainer inputs the location, intensity, and geometry of the radiation sources. In a preferred embodiment, a software application records the simulated sources defined by a trainer and calculates the radiation exposure (or dose rate) for the VRE at a suitable resolution for each location throughout the training facility.
[0034] The computer 124 uses the actual location of the worker-trainee 602 and the locations of the plurality of simulated radiation sources 502, 504, 506, to calculate an instantaneous simulated dose rate based on the distance between the simulated source and the actual location of the worker-trainee (see FIG. 7).
Claim Objections
Claims 9, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims are missing a period (.). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (Does this claim fall within at least one statutory category?):
Claims 1-4 and 9-12 are directed to a system.
Claims 5-8 and 13-16 are directed to a method.
Therefore, claims 1-16 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: ((a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea: and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groups of abstract ideas enumerates in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)):
Claim 1:
An exposure dose measurement simulation device comprising:
A memory configured to store instructions [generic computer component]; and
A processor configured to execute the instructions to implement [generic computer component]:
a virtual work area generating portion that generates a virtual work area corresponding to a work area of a radiation facility [a generic computer element for performing a generic computer function]; and
an exposure dose prediction portion that predicts an exposure dose of a worker positioned in the virtual work area [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts],
wherein the exposure dose prediction portion comprises a database [a generic computer element for performing a generic computer function] portion that includes first data on a spatial dose rates measured at a plurality of positions of the radiation facility and second data on a position of a radiation source in the radiation facility [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering], and
a first exposure dose calculation portion that calculate a radiation dose rate of the radiation source based on the spatial dose rates measured at the plurality of positions and distance between the position of the radiation source and the plurality of positions, and calculates the exposure dose of the first worker positioned in the virtual work area based on the radiation dose rate of the radiation source and the second data [mathematical concepts].
Step 2A, Prong 2 (1. Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and 2. Evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application): The claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites additional elements of “memory”, “processor”, “generating virtual working area”, and “database that include data”. The additional elements of “memory” and “processor” recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “virtual working area” is simply a display. This additional element of “generating virtual working area” recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Further, the additional element of “database that include data” is insignificant extra solution (i.e. data gathering). This additional element does not integrate the judicial exception/abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No):
As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional elements of “memory”, “processor” and “generating a virtual work area” are recited at a high level of generality and is recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “database includes data” is insignificant pre-solutions (i.e. data gathering). At most the additional element is not found to including anything more than data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) -vii. Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality".
As per claim 2, the claim falls into [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering and/or [mathematical concepts]].
As per claim 3, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts] and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 4, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts]].
As per claim 5, the instant claim recites substantially same limitation as the above rejected claim 1, and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 6, the claim falls into [mathematical concepts].
As per claim 7, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts]].
As per claim 8, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts]].
As per claim 9, the claim falls into [mathematical concepts]].
As per claim 10, the claim falls into [mathematical concepts]].
As per claim 11, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts]].
As per claim 12, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts]].
As per claim 13, the claim falls into [mathematical concepts]].
As per claim 14, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts]].
As per claim 15, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per claim 16, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
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, 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 4, 642, 463 issued to Thoms et al, in view of US Publication No. 2008/0241805 A1 issued to Schantz et al.
[Claim 1] Thoms et al discloses an exposure dose measurement simulation device comprising:
A memory configured to store instruction (See: Col. 3 lines 30-36, The digital processor includes a suitable program and scratch pad memory to allow one or more computations to be performed on the foregoing data and to provide output in one or more forms. To this end, an alarm may be included which is controlled by the digital processor, the alarm providing for an audible or other perceptible warning, when energized); and
A processor configured to execute the instruction to implement (See: Col. 3 lines 30-36, The digital processor includes a suitable program and scratch pad memory to allow one or more computations to be performed on the foregoing data and to provide output in one or more forms. To this end, an alarm may be included which is controlled by the digital processor, the alarm providing for an audible or other perceptible warning, when energized):
an exposure dose prediction portion that predicts an exposure dose of a worker positioned (See: Col. 5 lines 53-60, second means for determining from selected time duration information, alarm dose information and said predicted radiation exposure rate information, a time quantity identifying that time in the future that a user of said monitor can endure said predicted radiation exposure rate for said time duration without exceeding a radiation dose corresponding to said alarm dose information; Col. 9 lines 63-67, This prompts the user to enter the current work (or task) rate. The display initializes to the current sensed rate. If the user is located at the site he will perform the task, the sensed rate is the current work area rate and he may proceed to the next display; Col. 14 line 57, Let I.sub.1 be the H+1 dose rate for the work area; Col. 18 lines 44-57, the user must input the work area rate, the shelter rate (that is the rate to which the user will be subjected in the interval between the present time and that time at which he enters the work area), the task duration, and a dose the user is willing to accept during the course of the task. On the first manipulation the user is prompted for the work area rate. Once entered, this is used at line 403 to initialize the current rate to the user input work area rate. On the second manipulation the user is prompted to input the shelter radiation rate. This is used in line 407 to initialize the shelter rate),
wherein the exposure dose prediction portion comprises
a database portion (See: Col. 7 line 67 through col. 8 line 7, Therefore, if the user desired to set the dose limit, he would press function key 104 (see FIG. 1). The resulting display would be shown in FIG. 5B, prompting the user to select a particular dose limit. This selection is made by the use of a numerical keypad consisting of keys 101 (for the numerical characters 0-9). As a user keys in his dose limit, it is displayed in the field 37 and also stored in the RAM register 20-3 (see FIG. 2). Once the dose limit is selected, then the display will take the form shown in FIG. 4) that includes first data on a spatial dose rates measured at a plurality of positions of the radiation facility and second data on a position of a radiation source in the radiation facility (See: Col. 9 lines 34-39, Finally, under certain circumstances the user desires to perform a specified task, consuming a specified amount of time, but is aware (in some fashion) that the radiation levels at the location of this task (considering the task duration) will result in a total dose exceeding what the user finds acceptable. For example, as a result of the expected dose function, he may determine that the expected dose exceeds what he is willing to accept; Col. 9 line 63 through Col. 10 line 6, his prompts the user to enter the current work (or task) rate. The display initializes to the current sensed rate. If the user is located at the site he will perform the task, the sensed rate is the current work area rate and he may proceed to the next display. The next display, shown in FIG. 10B is provided prompting the user to enter the expected shelter rate. Again, the display initializes to the current sensed rate. If the user is located in the area (presumably a shelter of some type) where he will wait until performing the task, this is the shelter rate and he may proceed to the next display; Col. 10 line 50 through col. 11 line 13 and equations 2 and 3; In general, we are presented with a problem wherein a user has a dose D.sub.t at a time t and is being exposed to radiation at a rate R. The user has an associated dose limit (D.sub.L) which may be determined by a variety of factors, safety being one of them. Of primary importance to the user is a real time (continuous) calculation of the time-to-go (TTG) until the specified dose limit is reached. This calculation is most important when short term dose accumulations are of concern such as those occurring during a single task. Since, in most cases, the radioactive decay will not be significant over a short time, the calculation of time-to-go can be done by simple linear division. This has the added advantage of being a faster computation to perform than one involving calculating the integral of the decaying radiation rate. Furthermore, the calculation will be conservative in that it will somewhat underestimate the amount of time remaining. Also, to smooth the effects of the statistical fluctuations typical of radioactivity, the rate actually employed in the calculations is the average of the current and past three readings and each reading corresponds to approximately 2.5 seconds sample time) and
a first exposure dose calculation portion that calculates the exposure dose of the worker positioned using the first data and second data (See: Col. 14 lines 28-33, In the first opportunity calculation the user again currently has a dose D.sub.t. During the execution of a task the user is willing to receive an additional dose D.sub.2. However, the current rate is too high. Thus, by the time the user could complete the task his additional dose would exceed D.sub.2).
Thoms et al does not specify but Schantz et al discloses virtual working area (See: [0003] The present invention pertains generally to the field of real time simulation based training systems, more particularly to training systems for workers in nuclear or other hazardous environments; par [0023] thus, the trainee may wear a simulated dosimeter device 104 similar in appearance to an actual radiation dosimeter that provides a display during simulation training showing simulated exposure to radiation based on the trainee's actual proximity and path through the simulated environment 108; [0027] FIG. 4 shows a flow section of the flow facility of FIG. 3 which may be displayed to a trainer in a virtual radiation environment (VRE) display; [0031] Before each exercise, a trainer sets up one or more virtual radiation environment (VRE) configurations by defining simulated point, line, area, volume, and other sources of radiation throughout the training facility (see FIG. 5). The trainer inputs the location, intensity, and geometry of the radiation sources. In a preferred embodiment, a software application records the simulated sources defined by a trainer and calculates the radiation exposure (or dose rate) for the VRE at a suitable resolution for each location throughout the training facility) and calculate a radiation dose rate of the radiation source based on the spatial does rates measured at the plurality of positions and distances between the position of the radiation source and the plurality of positions (See: Abstract, providing a simulated total dose exposure measurement during a nuclear facility training exercise by locating participants using a real time location system, modeling incremental exposure as a function of location and summing incremental exposure to produce a total dose for each of the participants….Radiation sources may also have location tags and the exposure model may be modified in real time according to the tracked location of the radiation source; [0031] Before each exercise, a trainer sets up one or more virtual radiation environment (VRE) configurations by defining simulated point, line, area, volume, and other sources of radiation throughout the training facility (see FIG. 5). The trainer inputs the location, intensity, and geometry of the radiation sources. In a preferred embodiment, a software application records the simulated sources defined by a trainer and calculates the radiation exposure (or dose rate) for the VRE at a suitable resolution for each location throughout the training facility; [0034] The computer 124 uses the actual location of the worker-trainee 602 and the locations of the plurality of simulated radiation sources 502, 504, 506, to calculate an instantaneous simulated dose rate based on the distance between the simulated source and the actual location of the worker-trainee (see FIG. 7)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine exposure measurement as taught by Schantz et al to radiation monitor method of Thoms et al would be to help workers avoid unnecessary exposure to radiation and minimize total dosage (Schantz et al, par [0005]).
[Claim 2] Thoms et al discloses the exposure dose measurement simulation device of claim 1, wherein the database portion includes third data on radiation emitted from a reactor vessel internal structure of the radiation facility and fourth data on an area exposure dose of the radiation facility, and the exposure dose prediction portion further comprises a second exposure dose calculation portion that calculates the exposure dose of the worker by applying a working flow and working hours to the third data and the fourth data (See: Col. 8 lines 41-58, For certain procedures, the personal radiation detector requires an indication of elapsed time since an event which triggered the release of radiation. With this information the device can predict future radiation rate information. If the user decides to employ this feature, he will be prompted to set H-hour by the display shown in FIG. 7A. Thereafter he manipulates function key 102 to indicate that he will be setting this information. As a result of this manipulation, the display switches to that shown in FIG. 7B. At this point, he can manipulate the numerical keypad (consisting of keys 101) to input the elapsed time since the event. This allows the processor to maintain a current value for elapsed time. Knowing the elapsed time, and the present radiation rate, or an input radiation rate, the device 10 extrapolates to predict future radiation rates. One function employing the predictive feature is that of predicting decayed time-to-go).
[Claim 3] Schantz et al discloses the exposure dose measurement simulation device of claim 2, wherein the area exposure dose is an exposure dose to a lattice area where the working area is divided into a plurality of lattices (See: [0046] FIG. 9 illustrates a method for simulated dosimetry for multiple trainees using pre-calculated radiation for each point retrieved from a lookup table. Referring to FIG. 9, the lookup table method, referred to as a second method, begins at a start block 902. The second method continues with a training supervisor, health physicist, or other appropriate individual defining a VRE 904 as in the first method. In the second method, the VRE is used to create a dose rate look-up table for each location of interest within the training environment 906-916).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine exposure measurement as taught by Schantz et al to radiation monitor method of Thoms et al would be to help workers avoid unnecessary exposure to radiation and minimize total dosage (Schantz et al, par [0005]).
[Claim 4] Schantz et al discloses the exposure dose measurement simulation device of claim 1, wherein the virtual work area generating portion includes a three-dimensional building information modeling device, and the 3D building information modeling device modifies or replaces the virtual work area (See: [0003] The present invention pertains generally to the field of real time simulation based training systems, more particularly to training systems for workers in nuclear or other hazardous environments; par [0023] thus, the trainee may wear a simulated dosimeter device 104 similar in appearance to an actual radiation dosimeter that provides a display during simulation training showing simulated exposure to radiation based on the trainee's actual proximity and path through the simulated environment 108; [0027] FIG. 4 shows a flow section of the flow facility of FIG. 3 which may be displayed to a trainer in a virtual radiation environment (VRE) display; [0031] Before each exercise, a trainer sets up one or more virtual radiation environment (VRE) configurations by defining simulated point, line, area, volume, and other sources of radiation throughout the training facility (see FIG. 5). The trainer inputs the location, intensity, and geometry of the radiation sources. In a preferred embodiment, a software application records the simulated sources defined by a trainer and calculates the radiation exposure (or dose rate) for the VRE at a suitable resolution for each location throughout the training facility; par [0042] Note that both the volume source density and the distance between the source point and the worker-trainee location depend upon the location (x, y, z) within the volume. The volume integral is evaluated for all locations within the volume V).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine exposure measurement as taught by Schantz et al to radiation monitor method of Thoms et al would be to help workers avoid unnecessary exposure to radiation and minimize total dosage (Schantz et al, par [0005]).
As per Claims 5-8: The instant claims recite substantially same limitation as the above rejected claims 1-4, and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-16 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.
However, none of the cited prior art references of record fully anticipate or render obvious the independent claims in particular the limitation of: “wherein the first exposure dose calculation portion calculate the radiation dose rate of the radiation source by applying the first data and the distances to a distance inverse square law and a radiation attenuation formula” as recited in claims 9 and 13,
“wherein the first exposure dose calculation portion calculates the exposure dose of the first worker positioned in the virtual work area by applying the radiation dose rate of the radiation source and a distance between the position of the radiation source and a position of the first worker to a distance inverse square law and a radiation attenuation formula and inputting a working flow of the first worker and working hours of the first worker” as recited in claims 10 and 14,
“wherein the first worker is a worker that performs a dismantling work in the work area where a dismantling target is located other than a reactor vessel internal structure in the radiation facility” as recited in claims 11 and 15, and
“wherein the second worker is a worker that performs a dismantling work in the work area where the reactor vessel internal structure to be dismantled is located in the radiation facility” as recited in claims 12 and 16.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571 272 3676. 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.
KIBROM K. GEBRESILASSIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189 05/14/2026
Prosecution Insights