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 .
Continuation
The present application is a continuation of application No. 17/468,883, now Pat. No. 11,662,485, which was a continuation of application No. 16/381,856, now Pat. No. 11,131,783.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendment filed 11 November 2025 wherein: claims 1 and 17 are amended; claims 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 16, 18-20, and 26 are canceled; claims 28-29 are newly added; claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11-15, 17, and 21-25, and 27-29 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (page 7, first line through page 10, last line), filed 11 November 2025, with respect to claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11-15, 17, and 21-29 have been fully considered.
Examiner acknowledges the prior drawing objection, specification objection, and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been overcome by amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s traversal of the official notice relied upon in the prior rejection of: positioning a moderator between a neutron source and a thermal neutron trap (previously recited in claim 26, and now recited in claim 1); and three-dimensional neutron tomography (recited in claim 21). Examiner has provided references supporting the official notice in the new rejections below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 § U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claims 1, 15, and 17
Claims 1, 15, 17, and 20 interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “moderator assembly” uses the generic placeholder “assembly” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to a moderator (Applicant’s specification, Figs. 1A–2) and equivalents thereof.
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “focusing and/or reflecting elements” uses the generic placeholder “elements” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to lenses, mirrors, guide tubes (Applicant’s specification, p. 10, ll. 20 – 24) and equivalents thereof.
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “neutron source assembly” uses the generic placeholder “assembly” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to a neutron source (Applicant’s claim 1) and equivalents thereof. The limitation “moderator assembly” is interpreted as described above regarding claim 1.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–-----103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103) 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, 3, 5, 9, 11, 24-25, and 28
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 24-25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Cason (US 3,914,612 A).
Claim 1
Cason discloses a system comprising: a neutron source (18; californium-252); a collimator (26) with an opening for collecting neutrons; a thermal neutron trap (21 formed of heavy water; heavy water inherently functions as a thermal neutron trap for the fast neutrons emitted from the californium-252 source) positioned at the opening of the collimator (26), wherein the thermal neutron trap (21) includes a hollowed section (23) to promote migration of neutrons towards the opening of the collimator (26) and the thermal neutron trap (21) extends toward the neutron source (18); and a moderator assembly, wherein the thermal neutron trap is positioned within the moderator assembly (12); wherein the moderator assembly (12) is positioned between the neutron source (18) and the thermal neutron trap (21) along a beam line (central axis) of the collimator (26; col. 2, l. 12 - col. 4, l. 28; Fig. 1).
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Cason discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the collimator (26) is conical or pyramidal (col. 2, l. 61 - col. 3, l. 9, Fig. 1).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, Cason discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the thermal neutron trap (21) is straight (col. 2, ll. 44-61; Fig. 1).
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, Cason discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the neutrons comprise thermal neutrons (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, Cason discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the collimator is a neutron absorber-lined collimator (lined with cadmium, boral or boron carbide with epoxy liner; col. 2, ll. 62-67; these materials are inherently neutron-absorbing).
Claim 24
Regarding claim 24, Cason discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the neutron source comprises a solid target (californium-252; col. 2, ll. 26-43).
Claim 25
Regarding claim 25, Cason discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the moderator assembly (12) surrounds the neutron source (18; col. 2, ll. 26-43; Fig. 1).
Claim 28
Regarding claim 28, Cason discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the thermal neutron trap (21) is positioned directly at the opening of the collimator (26) with no intervening elements (col. 2, l. 12 - col. 4, l. 28; Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12-14, 17, 22-23, 27, and 29
Claims 12-14, 17, 22-23, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cason as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Whittemore (US 4,599,515 A).
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, Cason discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the collimator (26) is one of a plurality of independent collimators (col. 2, l. 12 - col. 4, l. 28; Fig. 1).
Cason does not expressly disclose the collimator is one of a plurality of collimators extending outwards from the neutron source, wherein each of plurality of independent collimators is configured to produce a neutron imaging beam line.
Whittemore discloses a system comprising: a neutron source 18 (within cavity 64); a collimator 80 (two collimators 80 shown in Fig. 3) with an opening 82 for collecting neutrons; and a thermal neutron trap 70 positioned at the opening of the collimator 80, wherein the thermal neutron trap 70 includes a hollowed section 72 to promote migration of neutrons towards the opening 82 of the collimator 80 and the thermal neutron trap 70 extends toward the neutron source 18 (col. 4, l. 26 – col. 8, l. 42; Figs. 1–3); a moderator 54 (col. 6, ll. 7 – 40; Fig. 3), wherein the collimator 80 is one of a plurality of independent collimators (two collimators 80) extending outward from the neutron source 18/64, wherein each of the plurality of independent collimators 80 is configured to produce a neutron imaging beam line (i.e., beams for neutron radiography; Whittemore: col. 4, l. 26 – col. 8, l. 42; Figs. 1–3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have modified the invention of Cason in view of the teachings of Whittemore so that the collimator is one of a plurality of collimators extending outwards from the neutron source, wherein each of plurality of independent collimators is configured to produce a neutron imaging beam line.
One would have been motivated to gain an advantage recited in Whittemore of being able to neutron radiograph multiple objects of interest using only one source (Whittemore, col. 7, ll. 11-30) as compared to the multiple sources used by Cason.
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, Cason modified teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the thermal neutron trap 70 is one of a plurality of thermal neutron traps (two thermal neutron traps 70), each positioned at an opening of one of the plurality of independent collimators 80 (Whittemore: col. 4, l. 26 – col. 8, l. 42; Figs. 1–3; i.e., in adapting the multi-source, single-trap system of Cason to use a single source as disclosed by Whittemore, multiple traps would be required).
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, Cason modified teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a neutron imaging detector comprising a detector medium (gadolinium layer) and an imaging plane (film for radiography; Whittemore: col. 5, ll. 45 – 64).
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, see the rejections of claims 1 (source assembly) and 14 (neutron imaging) above, mutatis mutandis. In particular, Whittemore discloses a method of neutron imaging (radiography) comprising: positioning an object 31 in front of a neutron imaging detector 30; generating source neutrons with a neutron source assembly 18 (within cavity 64; col. 4, l. 26 – col. 8, l. 42; Figs. 1–3); moderating the source neutrons with a moderator assembly (54; col. 6, ll. 7 – 40; Fig. 3); collecting a portion of the source neutrons with a collimator 80 and a thermal neutron trap 70 positioned at an opening of the collimator 80 to produce a neutron imaging beam line; and passing the neutron imaging beam through at least a portion of the object 31 thereby generating a neutron image that is collected by the neutron imaging detector 30 (col. 4, l. 26 – col. 8, l. 42; Figs. 1–3).
Claim 22
Regarding claim 21, Cason modified does not expressly disclose the neutron source comprises a gas target.
Examiner takes official notice neutron sources comprising gas targets were well-known and routinely used in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have modified the invention of Cason in view of what was well-known to so that the neutron source comprises a gas target. One would have been motivated to do so to use a well-known and well-understood neutron source, as compared to using a novel neutron source. Regarding official notice, see MPEP § 2144.03. Because Applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP § 2144.03(C).
Claim 23
Regarding claim 23, Cason modified does not expressly disclose the neutron source comprises a deuterium-tritium neutron source.
Examiner takes official notice neutron sources comprising deuterium-tritium neutron sources were well-known and routinely used in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have modified the invention of Cason in view of what was well-known to so that the neutron source comprises a deuterium-tritium neutron source. One would have been motivated to do so to use a well-known and well-understood neutron source, as compared to using a novel neutron source. Regarding official notice, see MPEP § 2144.03. Because Applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP § 2144.03(C).
Claim 27
Regarding claim 27, Cason modified does not expressly disclose the moderator assembly comprises heavy water.
Examiner takes using heavy water as a moderator was well-known and routinely practiced in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have modified the invention of Cason in view of what was well-known to so that the water is heavy water. One would have been motivated to do so to achieve desired moderating characteristics. Regarding official notice, see MPEP § 2144.03. Because Applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP § 2144.03(C).
Claim 29
Regarding claim 29, see the rejection of claim 28 above.
Claim 15
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cason in view of Whittemore as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Norris (US 2008/0017806 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Cason modified teaches a neutron focusing element 72 is configured to increase neutron flux at the imaging plane (Whittemore: col. 5, ll. 45 – 64; col. 10, l. 62 – col. 11, l. 8). Cason modified does not expressly disclose a plurality of focusing or reflecting elements which are lenses, mirrors, or guide tubes.
Norris discloses a thermal neutron beam generator 50 (¶ 16, Fig. 2) comprising one or more focusing elements 160 which are lenses (¶¶ 18, 28; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Cason in view of the teachings of Norris to include a plurality of focusing elements.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Norris of conserving neutrons (Norris: ¶ 28).
Claim 21
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cason in view of Whittemore as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of White (US 2020/0309973 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Cason modified teaches the method of claim 17, but does not expressly disclose the neutron image is one of a plurality of neutron images captured at different angles to generate a three-dimensional tomographic image data set.
However, three-dimensional neutron tomography was well-known and routinely practiced in the art. For example, White discloses neutron computed tomography wherein a plurality of neutron images are captured at different angles to generate a three-dimensional tomographic image data set (¶ 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Cason in view of the teachings of White to include performing three-dimensional neutron tomography as claimed.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in White of generating a 3D image of the local neutron attenuation in a sample object conserving neutrons (White, ¶ 30; i.e., the ordinary purpose of neutron tomography).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment or traversal of official notice necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §¶ 706.07(a), 2144.03(D). 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 BLAKE RIDDICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1865. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm ET, with flexible scheduling.
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 on 571-272-2995. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Blake C. Riddick, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884