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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-17 are cancelled and claims 18-28 are new. Claims 18-28 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/2026 and 1/30/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejection of claims 12-13 and 15-16 under 112(b), and as noted by Applicant on page 2 of the response filed on 1/30/2026, claims 12-13 and 15-16 are cancelled rendering the rejections moot.
Regarding the rejections of previous claims 1 and 12 under 101, Examiner agrees with Applicant’s contention on page 2 of the response filed on 1/30/26 and on page 4 of the response filed on 1/15/2026 that new claims 18 and 16 (corresponding to previous claims 1 and 12) include a combination of features that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, claim 18 recites the additional elements “e) redeploy the radiation monitors to the second optimized set of physical locations” and “f) collect, via the radiation monitors at the second optimized set of physical locations, a second set of radiation level signals,” having a significant functional relation to the modeling steps c) and g) sufficient to integrate the modeling steps into a practical application. Claim 26 includes a substantially similar combination of elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The rejections of independent claims 18 and 26 and all claims depending therefrom under 101 are therefore withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 18-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 recites, in part, “d) determine a second optimized set of physical locations for the radiation monitors based on the modeled radiation field; e) redeploy the radiation monitors to the second optimized set of physical locations; f) collect, via the radiation monitors at the second optimized set of physical locations, a second set of radiation level signals,” which does not appear to be disclosed with reasonable clarity by Applicant’s original disclosure.
Applicant’s specification and drawings at least indirectly disclose the step “a) deploy a first set of radiation monitors at a first set of physical locations within the facility” (FIGS. 2 and 3 depicting physical location deployment of radiation monitors/detectors; page 3 “Radiation detectors are distributed in a facility …”). However, Applicant’s original disclosure does not appear to disclose determining alternative radiation monitor locations based on a modeled radiation field, and/or otherwise relocating the monitors based on the modeled radiation field and therefore does not disclose any of the steps of “determine a second optimized set of physical locations for the radiation monitors based on the modeled radiation field,” “redeploy the radiation monitors to the second optimized set of physical locations,” and “collect, via the radiation monitors at the second optimized set of physical locations, a second set of radiation level signals.”
Independent claim 26 recites a substantially similar combination of elements (d) determining, based on the initial radiation model, an optimized subset of physical locations, fewer in number than the initial set, to generate the DRM within a predetermined accuracy threshold; e) redeploying the radiation monitors to the optimized subset of physical locations; f) collecting, via the radiation monitors at the optimized subset, final radiation level signals) not supported by Applicant’s original disclosure as claim 18 and is likewise rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 19-25 depending from claim 18 and claims 27-28 depending from claim 26 are likewise rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In each of claims 27 and 28, “said optimization algorithm” lacks antecedent basis such that one of ordinary skill would be unable to ascertain the scope/meaning of the claim with reasonable certainty. For the purpose of examination, and based on Examiner’s belief of Applicant’s intent based on limitations of claim 26 from which claims 27 and 28 depend, “said optimization algorithm” is interpreted as being the equation in line 8 of claim 26.
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.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 28 recites “said optimization algorithm is replaced by the following equation …,” which, for claim 28 as best understood and interpreted in view of the grounds for rejecting claim 28, means that claim 28 fails to include all limitations of claim 26 from which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W BACA whose telephone number is (571)272-2507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/MATTHEW W. BACA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights