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 Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
1. (Proposed Amendments): A dose measuring device for a measurement of a radiation dose comprising:
a radiation-sensitive measuring film; and
a base body,
wherein the radiation-sensitive measuring film is wound onto the base body at least in certain areas, and
wherein the base body comprises a material having a density, which largely corresponds to [[the]] a density of [[the]] a particulate material to be treated.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
2. (Proposed Amendments): The dose measuring device according to Claim 1,
wherein dimension, which is substantially similar to at least one dimension of the particulate material to be treated, and
wherein the at least one dimension of the base body is within ±25% of [[the]] a corresponding at least one dimension of the particulate material to be treated.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
5. (Proposed Amendments): The dose measuring device according to Claim 1, wherein the base body comprises a carbon-based material.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
6. (Proposed Amendments): The dose measuring device according to Claim 1,
wherein the base body comprises a material, whose chemical structure is substantially similar to a chemical structure of the particulate material to be treated, and
wherein the material of the base body has a chemical composition that matches the primary elemental constituents of the particulate material to be treated.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
8. (Proposed Amendments): The dose measuring device according to Claim 1, wherein [[the]] a number (a lack of an antecedent basis) of windings of the radio-sensitive measuring film on the base body corresponds to 1 to 20.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
9. (Proposed Amendments): The dose measuring device according to Claim 1, further comprising radiation-sensitive measuring film on the base body.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
10. (Proposed Amendments): The dose measuring device according to Claim 1, further comprising a second end (a lack of an antecedent basis) of the radiation-sensitive measuring film.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
11. (Proposed Amendments): A measurement method using at least one a sterilization of a particulate material including the following steps:
a) mixing the particulate material to be treated using [[said]] the at least one device to form a mixture,
b) guiding the mixture past at least one electron beam,
c) separating the at least one device from the guided mixture,
d) analyzing the radiation-sensitive measuring film, and
e) determining the applied radiation dose.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
13. (Proposed Amendments): The measurement method according to Claim 11, wherein a number of dose measuring devices added per kg of the particulate material is 4 to 50.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
14. (Proposed Amendments): The measurement method according to Claim 11, further comprising determining a transfer factor by means of a Monte Carlo simulation for the determined transfer factor to an actual value.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Friedman (U. S. Patent No. 10,525,285 B1).
With respect to claim 1, Friedman disclosed a dose measuring device for a measurement of a radiation dose comprising:
a radiation-sensitive measuring film (860); and
a base body (870, 872),
wherein the radiation-sensitive measuring film is wound onto the base body at least in certain areas (column 15, line 55 – column 16, line 15), and
wherein the base body comprises a material having a density, which largely corresponds to a density of a particulate material to be treated (when the particulate material is the same as the material of the base body, which is another way to say it is an intended use).
With respect to claim 2, Friedman disclosed the dose measuring device according to Claim 1,
wherein the base body having at least one dimension, which is substantially similar to at least one dimension of the particulate material to be treated, and
wherein the at least one dimension of the base body is within ±25% of a corresponding at least one dimension of the particulate material to be treated (the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP § 2115).
With respect to claim 3, Friedman disclosed the dose measuring device according to Claim 1, wherein the base body has a cylinder-like section, wherein the radiation-sensitive measuring film is wound on the cylinder-like section (column 15, line 55 - column 16, line 15).
With respect to claim 4, Friedman disclosed the dose measuring device according to Claim 1,
wherein the base body has at least one guide section for guiding the radiation-sensitive measuring film during winding of the radiation-sensitive measuring film onto the base body,
wherein the at least one guide section comprises two guide sections (870, 872), and
wherein the radiation-sensitive measuring film lies between the two guide sections after winding the radiation-sensitive measuring film onto the base body.
With respect to claim 6, Friedman disclosed the dose measuring device according to Claim 1,
wherein the base body comprises a material, whose chemical structure is substantially similar to a chemical structure of the particulate material to be treated, and
wherein the material of the base body has a chemical composition that matches the primary elemental constituents of the particulate material to be treated (the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP § 2115).
With respect to claim 8, Friedman disclosed the dose measuring device according to Claim 1,
wherein a number of windings of the radio-sensitive measuring film on the base body corresponds to 1 to 20 (column 15, line 55 - column 16, line 15).
With respect to claim 9, Friedman disclosed the dose measuring device according to Claim 1, further comprising at least one first fixing means for fixing a first end of the radiation-sensitive measuring film on the base body (the first end is attached to the base body as shown in FIG. 8A).
With respect to claim 10, Friedman disclosed the dose measuring device according to Claim 1, further comprising at least one second fixing means for fixing a second end of the radiation-sensitive measuring film (the second end is attached to the base body as shown in FIG. 8A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, and 11-14 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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 10 November 2025 with respect to the drawings have been fully considered. The objections of the drawings have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 23 June 2026 with respect to the specification have been fully considered. The objections of the specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 23 10 November 2025 with respect to claim 2 have been fully considered. The objections of claim 2 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 10 November 2025 with respect to claim 5 have been fully considered. The objection of claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 10 November 2025 with respect to claim 7 have been fully considered. The objections of claim 7 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 10 November 2025 with respect to claim 12 have been fully considered. The objections of claim 12 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 10 November 2025 with respect to claim 13 have been fully considered. The objections of claim 13 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 10 November 2025 with respect to claims 5, 7, 8, and 11-14 have been fully considered. The rejection of claims 5, 7, 8, and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 10 November 2025 with respect to claims 2 and 6 have been fully considered. The rejection of claims 2 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a density of a particulate material to be treated (e.g., grains or spices)) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Friedman (U. S. Patent No. 11,027,152 B1) disclosed an ionizing-radiation beam monitoring system.
Friedman (U. S. Patent No. 10,828,513 B2) disclosed an ionizing-radiation beam monitoring system.
Liu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,379,227 B2) disclosed a radiation dose measuring method.
Calvert et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,979,829 B2) disclosed devices and methods for determining an amount of energy absorbed during an irradiation.
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 Allen C. Ho, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, David J. Makiya, can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
Allen C. Ho, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Allen C. Ho/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Allen.Ho@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights