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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/1/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 6/1/2026 was accepted and entered. Accordingly, claim(s) 1, 5-6, 10, and 14-15 has/have been amended. Claim(s) 8-9 and 17 has/have been cancelled. No claim(s) has/have been newly added. Thus, claims 1-7 and 10-16 are currently pending in this application. Changes have been made to the specification and drawings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The drawings, specification, and claims are replete with errors. A thorough and careful revision should be completed.
Specification
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, “standard device” ([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 and grammatically incorrect coma usages 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prosser (US 2017/0143996) teaches methods and an apparatus for managing radiotherapy that includes storing calibration settings in a database (Abstract).
Duftschmid et al. (US 5,258,926) teaches a method of measuring radiation that includes dose rate and using values stored in calibration tables (Abstract; col. 4, lines 47-54; col. 6, lines 59-64).
Bronson et al. (US 2013/0173220) teaches a radiation analysis apparatus and method that includes dose rate detectors and generating calibration factors (Abstract; [0118]).
Claims 1-7 and 10-16 have not been rejected under 35 USC 102 nor 35 USC 103, but have been rejected under 35 USC 112, as explained above. “All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against prior art.” In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). It is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions. (MPEP 2143.03(I))
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
Prosecution Insights