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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 is objected to because reference number 41 is not directed to a material guide channel located inside an outer housing 40.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: an outer housing 40, a mixing device 46, an electrical frame 140, and an electric cabinet 141.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 63.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: DOSE MEASURING DEVICE COMPRISING A BASE BODY AND A RADIATION-SENSITIVE MEASURING FILM FOR A MEASUREMENT OF A RADIATION DOSE AND MEASUREMENT METHOD FOR DETERMINING AN APPLIED RADIATION DOSE DURING PASTEURIZATION AND/OR STERILIZATION OF PARTICULATE MATERIAL.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification should not refer to claims because claims might get amended.
Page 10, line 29, “44” after “the outer housing” should be replaced by --40--.
Page 11, lines 17-18, --second-- should be inserted before “vibration surface 11”.
Page 13, line 18, “12” after “measuring film” should be replaced by --62--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim objected to because of the following informalities:
1. (Proposed Amendments): A dose measuring device for [[the]] a measurement (a lack of an antecedent basis) of a radiation dose comprising:
[[-]] a radiation-sensitive measuring film; [[and,]] 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 is fabricated from a material having a density, which largely corresponds to [[the]] a density (a lack of an antecedent basis) of [[the]] a particulate material (a lack of an antecedent basis) 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, [[that]] wherein the base body has at least one dimension, which largely corresponds to at least one dimension of [[a]] the particulate material to be treated.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
3. (Proposed Amendments): The dose measuring device according to Claim 1, [[that]] wherein the base body has a cylinder-like section, wherein the radiation-sensitive measuring film is the cylinder-like section.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
4. (Proposed Amendments): The dose measuring device according to Claim 1, [[that]] wherein the base body has at least one guide section for guiding the radiation-sensitive measuring film during winding of the [[same]] radiation-sensitive measuring film onto the base body, wherein the at least one guide section comprises two guide sections, and wherein radiation-sensitive measuring film lies between [[these]] the two guide sections after winding the [[same]] radiation-sensitive measuring film onto the base body.
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, [[that]] wherein the base body is fabricated from a carbon-based material, preferably from a polymer.
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, [[that]] wherein the base body is fabricated from a material, whose chemical structure largely corresponds to [[the]] a chemical structure (a lack of an antecedent basis) of the particulate material to be treated.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
7. (Proposed Amendments): The dose measuring device according to Claim 1, [[that]] wherein the radiation-sensitive measuring film has a thickness of up to 200 pm, preferably of 10-50 pm.
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 a number of windings of the radiation-sensitive measuring film on the base body corresponds to 1 to 20, preferably 2 to [[10]] 10, and particularly preferably 3 to 6.
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, [[that]] further comprising at least one first fixing means 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, [[that]] further comprising at least one second fixing means a second end 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 a dose measuring device according to Claim 1 to determine [[the]] an applied radiation dose during a pasteurization and/or a sterilization of a particulate material including the following steps:
a) mixing the particulate material to be treated using several dose measuring devices to form a mixture,
b) guiding the mixture past at least one electron beam,
c) separating the several dose measuring devices (a previously recited limitation) from the
d) analyzing the radiation-sensitive measuring film, and
e) determining the applied radiation dose.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
12. (Proposed Amendments): The measurement method according to Claim 11, wherein before analyzing the radiation-sensitive measuring film, the radiation-sensitive measuring film is removed from the base body.
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 [[the]] a number of dose measuring devices the particulate material is 4 to 50, preferably 8 to 30, particularly preferably 8 to 20.
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 transfer factor to [[the]] an actual value (a lack of an antecedent basis).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 5, 7, 8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
With respect to claim 5, the word "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With respect to claim 7, the word "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With respect to claim 8, the word "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 11 recites a limitation “the irradiated dose measuring devices” in line 7, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 11 previously recites a limitation “several dose measuring devices” in line 4.
Claim 11 recites a limitation “the irradiated measuring film” in line 8, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites a limitation “a radiation-sensitive measuring film” in line 3.
Claim 12 recites a limitation “the irradiated measuring film” in line 2, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites a limitation “a radiation-sensitive measuring film” in line 3.
With respect to claim 13, the word "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With respect to claim 14, the word "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 2 and 6 are 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. Claims 2 and 6 fail to set forth an additional structural limitation of the dose measuring device. See Material or Article Worked Upon by Apparatus in MPEP § 2115. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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 is fabricated from 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 has at least one dimension, which largely corresponds to 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 (870) 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 (two circular pieces), and wherein the radiation-sensitive measuring film lies between the two guide sections after winding the radiation-sensitive measuring film onto the base body (FIG. 8A).
With respect to claim 6, Friedman disclosed the dose measuring device according to Claim 1, wherein the base body is fabricated from a material, whose chemical structure largely corresponds to a chemical structure 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 radiation-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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Currie et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,963,540 B2) disclosed a device and a method for pasteurizing and/or sterilizing a particular material.
Currie (U. S. Patent No. 11,896,041 B2) disclosed a device and a method for pasteurizing and/or sterilizing a particular material.
Meneses et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,849,333 B2) disclosed devices and methods for pasteurizing and/or sterilizing a particular material, and a cartridge.
Friedman (U. S. Patent No. 10,525,285 B1) disclosed a monitoring system for an ionizing-radiation beam.
Nagamune (U. S. Patent No. 9,645,254 B2) disclosed a device for measuring a dose distribution.
Neuhaus-Steinmetz et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,518,126 B2) disclosed a dosing film and an associated method.
Patel (U. S. Patent No. 7,476,874 B2) disclosed a self-indication dosimeter for radiation alert.
Korenev (U. S. Patent No. 6,617,596 B1) disclosed an on-line measurement of a dosage of an absorbed electron beam in an irradiated product.
Korenev et al. (U. Patent No. 6,429,444 B1) disclosed real-time monitoring of a radiation dose of an electron beam.
Purtle (U. S. Patent No. 6,157,028 A) disclosed a method for dose mapping to ensure proper amounts of a gamma irradiation.
Yamada et al. (U. S. Patent No. 4,880,986 A) disclosed a system comprising fluorescent dosimeters for measuring radiation doses.
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
Prosecution Insights