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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has provided no evidence of definitions and incomplete definitions of terms.
The drawings, specification, and claims are replete with errors. A thorough and careful revision should be completed.
Specification
The amendment filed 3/10/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: high activity sealed sources (HASS)” ([0004]); “mth first relative response result” ([0011]; [0040]; [0073]; [0119]), “the current device to be calibrated in one of the first device to be calibrated to the nth device to be calibrated” ([0012]; [0041]); “The proposed database is a database including types of the n devices to be calibrated relative position relationships between the standard device and corresponding devices to be calibrated, and statistical data under different relative position relationships” ([0056]).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
The specification includes terms, which are not clearly defined, neither explicitly nor contextually, and it is unclear what the meanings are of these terms. For example, “but it is required to use radiation sources with high activity to establish reference radiation conditions” ([0004]), “standard device” ([0056]), “a proposed database” ([0056]), and “a first second-calibration factor” ([0056]).
Due to the run-on nature of some of the specification the relationship between elements/steps is unclear. For example, it is unclear if “a first device” is a part of the “standard device.” For example, see [0056].
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because: the drawings include many of the issues present in the claims and specification, as further explained above and below. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-17 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The claims are replete with errors. The claims should be revised carefully to correct the numerous errors. Examples of some unclear, inexact, or verbose limitations in the claims are:
Due to the run-on structure of the limitations, the relationships of elements and steps are unclear. For example, is “a first device to be calibrated” merely required to be in a reference radiation field? Is a first calibration factor required to be obtained or is this merely an intended possible result?
It is unclear what the standard device represents. Is the standard device a standard source, a standard detector, something else entirely?
Conclusion
Claims 1-17 have not been rejected under 35 USC 102 nor 35 USC 103, but has been rejected under 35 USC 112, as explained above.
The Examiner notes, that no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain claim language and therefore, it would be improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 USC 103 on these assumptions. Thus, the claims are unable to be completely considered regarding the prior art and whether or not they would be non-obvious. See MPEP 2143.03(I).
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 Carolyn Fin whose telephone number is (571)270-1286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/CAROLYN FIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2884