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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/05/25 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 have been amended. Claim 4 has been cancelled. Claims 1-3 and 5-11 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the added obviousness reasoning below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seviour (WO 2013/084004 A1) in view of Nagai (US 2010/0215317) and Kozempel (EP 2372720 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Seviour teaches a method of using a cyclotron for material analysis, comprising the steps of:
positioning a target material to be analyzed for irradiation on a sample holder (page 7 lines 10-12);
focusing a beam comprising a deuteron ion beam (page 5 lines 33-34; page 6 lines 1-5) from a cyclotron for delivery to the target material;
irradiating the target material with the beam to induce a (d,*) or a (p,*) reaction with the target material to provide a radiation emission from the target material for the material analysis of the target material (page 7 lines 32-34; page 8 lines 1-3); and
analyzing the radiation emission from the target material (page 7 lines 32-34; page 8 lines 1-3).
wherein the beam comprising the deuteron ion beam produced by the cyclotron has an energy in a range of from and including 1 MeV to 3 MeV (page 5 lines 5-11).
Seviour fails to teach a step of detecting the radiation emission from the target material using a detector.
Nagai teaches a radiation generating system comprising a target material that is irradiated with fast neutrons (Fig. 13), wherein a detector is configured to detect radiation emission from the target material (¶ 0200). Nagai teaches that the radiation detection provides confirmation of the radiation condition (¶ 0200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate a step of detecting Seviour’s radiation emission from the target material using a detector, so that radiation conditioned may be confirmed, as taught in Nagai.
Seviour further fails to teach that and the beam has a beam current in a range of from and including 5 pA to 100 nA.
Kozempel teaches a radiation system that produces radiation from a deuteron beam impacting a target material, wherein the deuteron beam has a beam current in a range of from and including 5 pA to 100 nA, which is preferred to maximize production (¶ 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate a beam current in a range of from and including 5 pA to 100 nA in Seviour’s system, because such beam current is preferred to maximize production, as taught in Kozempel.
Seviour further fails to explicitly teach that the wherein the target material is selected from the group consisting of an archeological sample, an industrial sample, a historical sample, an environmental sample, a biological sample, a thin film of carbon composite material, doped semiconductor crystals, filters for air pollution, metals in motor oil, and metals in cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to use a target material that is selected from the group consisting of an archeological sample, an industrial sample, a historical sample, an environmental sample, a biological sample, a thin film of carbon composite material, doped semiconductor crystals, filters for air pollution, metals in motor oil, and metals in cells, since it has been held to be within tire general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In addition, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. See MPEP 2114: A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Therefore, using the claimed method with different target materials does not differentiate the cyclotron system from the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Seviour in view of Nagai and Kozempel teaches the method of using a cyclotron for material analysis according to claim 1, wherein the beam comprises a deuteron particle beam (page 6 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 3, Seviour in view of Nagai and Kozempel teaches the method of using a cyclotron for material analysis according to claim 1, wherein the step of analyzing the radiation emission from the target material include using one or more of a particle induced X-ray technique and a gamma ray emission technique (¶ 0200).
Regarding claim 5, Seviour in view of Nagai and Kozempel teaches the method of using a cyclotron for material analysis according to claim 1, wherein the detector is a high purity germanium detector (¶ 0200).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seviour (WO 2013/084004 A1) in view of Nagai (US 2010/0215317) and Kozempel (EP 2372720 A1), in further view of Yamazaki (US 2012/0190171).
Regarding claim 6, Seviour in view of Nagai and Kozempel teaches the method of using a cyclotron for material analysis according to claim 1, but fails to further teach that the radiation emission is proton or deuteron backscattering and wherein the proton or deuteron backscattering is analyzed using a Rutherford backscattering technique.
Yamazaki teaches a radiation system comprising accelerated hydrogen ions, wherein measurements are performed using a Rutherford backscattering spectrometry (¶ 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate a Rutherford backscattering technique to analyze Seviour’s radiation emission, because a Rutherford backscattering technique is well known and used in the art, as shown in Yamazaki.
Claim 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seviour (WO 2013/084004 A1) in view of Nagai (US 2010/0215317).
Regarding claim 7, Seviour teaches an apparatus for material analysis, comprising:
a cyclotron configured to provide a particle beam line of deuteron ions for irradiation of a target material (page 11 lines 14-20), wherein the particle beam line produced by the cyclotron has an energy in a range of from and including 1 MeV to 3 MeV (page 5 lines 5-11);
a sample holder configured to hold the target material for analysis (page 7 lines 10-12); and
a computer controller configured to control the cyclotron to generate and deliver the particle beam line for irradiating the target material (page 5 lines 33-34; page 6 lines 1-5),
wherein the particle beam line induces a (d,*) or a (p,*) reaction with the target material to provide the radiation emission (page 7 lines 32-34; page 8 lines 1-3).
Seviour fails to teach a detector system including a detector, the detector being configured to detect a radiation emission from the target material for the material analysis of the target material from irradiating the target material with the particle beam line of the deuteron ions.
Nagai teaches a radiation generating system comprising a target material that is irradiated with fast neutrons (Fig. 13), wherein a detector is configured to detect radiation emission from the target material (¶ 0200). Nagai teaches that the radiation detection provides confirmation of the radiation condition (¶ 0200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate a detector system for detecting Seviour’s radiation emission from the target material using a detector, so that radiation conditioned may be confirmed, as taught in Nagai.
Seviour further fails to explicitly teach that the wherein the target material is selected from the group consisting of an archeological sample, an industrial sample, a historical sample, an environmental sample, a biological sample, a thin film of carbon composite material, doped semiconductor crystals, filters for air pollution, metals in motor oil, and metals in cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to use a target material that is selected from the group consisting of an archeological sample, an industrial sample, a historical sample, an environmental sample, a biological sample, a thin film of carbon composite material, doped semiconductor crystals, filters for air pollution, metals in motor oil, and metals in cells, since it has been held to be within tire general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In addition, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. See MPEP 2114: A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Therefore, using the claimed method with different target materials does not differentiate the cyclotron system from the prior art.
Regarding claim 9, Seviour in view of Nagai teaches the apparatus for material analysis according to claim 7, wherein an irradiation geometry of the target material is varied in a range of from and including orthogonal to 0° relative to the particle beam line (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Seviour in view of Nagai teaches the apparatus for material analysis according to claim 7, wherein the detector is a high purity germanium detector (¶ 0200).
Regarding claim 11, Seviour in view of Nagai teaches the apparatus for material analysis according to claim 7, wherein the detector is placed at an angle between and including 90° to 180° relative to the particle beam line (Fig. 12).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seviour (WO 2013/084004 A1) in view of Nagai (US 2010/0215317) and Kozempel (EP 2372720 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Seviour in view of Nagai teaches the apparatus for material analysis according to claim 7, but fails to teach a beam current of the particle beam line of the hydrogen ions or the deuteron ions is in a range of from and including 5 pA to 100 nA.
Kozempel teaches a radiation system that produces radiation from a deuteron beam impacting a target material, wherein the deuteron beam has a beam current in a range of from and including 5 pA to 100 nA, which is preferred to maximize production (¶ 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate a beam current in a range of from and including 5 pA to 100 nA in Seviour’s system, because such beam current is preferred to maximize production, as taught in Kozempel.
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 HSIEN C TSAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday (8-5).
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/HSIEN C TSAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881