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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, corresponding to claims 1-7 in the reply filed on November 3rd, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the nearly every reference numeral in the drawing does not correspond to the reference numeral recited in the specification. Applicant may amend the numerals in the drawings or amend the numerals in the specification such that said numerals correspond with one another. Should the Applicant amend the drawings, then 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. 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.
Claim Interpretation
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the exit conveyor to the return conveyor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to depend claim 4 from claim 3. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korenev (U.S. Patent No. 6,617,596) in view of Stirling (UK Patent Application No. GB 2,344,503).
Concerning claims 1 & 2, Korenev discloses a product sterilization system (column 1, lines 13-16) comprising:
A source of electron beam-rays (10) producing a field of electron beam-rays (i.e., ebeam) in a treatment zone (Figure 1);
A conveyance (32) delivering products (30) to the treatment zone for irradiation by the field of ebeam-rays;
A first X-ray detection subsystem (40b) in the treatment zone between the products (30) and the source of ebeam-rays (Figure 1);
A second X-ray detection subsystem (40a) in the treatment zone behind the products (30); and
A controller subsystem responsive to the first X-ray detection subsystem (40b) and the second X-ray detection subsystem (40a) and configured to determine an X-ray dose absorbed by the products (column 2, lines 5-20). Note that Korenev discloses that subsystems (40b & 40a) can be utilized to detect X-rays (column 6, lines 18-28).
Although the source (10) can be utilized and converted into X-rays (column 1, lines 30-38), and the entirety of the apparatus will be necessarily found in a room, which can be construed as a vault; Korenev does not specifically disclose that the system is found in a vault, or that the source is an X-ray source. Stirling discloses a product sterilization system (Abstract) that includes a conveyance (20) for delivering products (23) to a treatment zone (21), a vault (Figures 5 & 11), and a source of X-rays (numeral 19; page 8, lines 23-28) in the vault producing a field of X-rays in the treatment zone (Figures 5 & 11). Concerning claim 2, Stirling discloses that the source of X-rays includes an electron accelerator and a target producing X-rays in response to electrons emitted by the electron accelerator (page 8, lines 23-30). The reference discloses that the source of X-rays are provided because said source is a successful source for the sterilization of the products (page 1, lines 15-20), and that the vault is provided in order to prevent the X-rays from escaping the treatment zone (Abstract). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an X-ray source (as stated in Stirling) and a vault in Korenev in order to successfully sterilize products transported on the conveyor and prevent the X-rays from escaping the treatment zone as exemplified by Stirling.
Therefore, claim 1 is not patentable over Korenev in view of Stirling.
Regarding claim 3, Korenev does not appear to disclose a return conveyor between an entrance and exit conveyor. Nonetheless, Stirling continues to disclose that the conveyance includes a vault entrance conveyor, a vault exit conveyor, and a return conveyor between the entrance conveyor and the exit conveyor configured to return products to the treatment zone (Figures 5, 8, 9 and 11). The reference discloses that the return conveyor between the entrance and exit conveyor allow that product to return to the treatment zone for further treatment if necessary (page 9, line 20 to page 10, line 28). Thus, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a return conveyor between an entrance and exit conveyor of a vault in Korenev in order to allow the product to return to the treatment zone for further treatment if necessary as exemplified by Stirling as well.
As such, claim 3 is not patentable over Korenev in view of Stirling as well.
Regarding claim 7, the system of Korenev is capable of treating palletized products (Figure 1).
Thus, claim 7 is also not patentable over Korenev in view of Stirling.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korenev (U.S. Patent No. 6,617,596) in view of Stirling (UK Patent Application No. GB 2,344,503) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Larsen, III et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0082954).
Korenev is relied upon as set forth above. Korenev does not appear to disclose that the detectors are ion chamber detectors. Larsen discloses systems and methods for radiation detection (Abstract). The reference continues to disclose that ion chamber detectors are a particularly useful and more accurate way to measure the radiation dose of X-rays (paragraph 37). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize ion chamber detectors as the detectors in Korenev in order to more accurately measure the radiation dosage of X-rays as exemplified by Larsen.
Therefore, claims 5 and 6 are not patentable over Korenev in view of Stirling and Larsen.
Allowable Subject Matter
Should the Applicant overcome the 112(b) rejection noted above, then claim 4 would be merely objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799