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 .
Status of Claims
1. Claims 1-13 are pending in this application and examined herein.
35 USC § 101
2. Claims 1-13 are directed to patent eligible subject matter. Claim 1 is directed to a process reciting a mathematical calculation—the estimation of isotope concentration in a fluid based on numerous calibration curves stored in a database. However, the claim recites additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The use of spatial temperature distribution in the calibration curve data is an improvement to the technology of detecting isotope concentration MPEP2106.05(a)(II). Like examples (i) and (iv), the claimed process improves the sensitivity of measurements and more accurately determines isotope concentration (see specification at [0075], [0133]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
4. Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
5. Claim 1 recites “various spatial temperature distributions through the group of detectors” but fails to recite any particular arrangement of the plurality of neutron detectors. Based on the disclosure, the claimed method can only be practiced with detectors placed in a moderating material, the detectors being placed at varying distances from the isotope sample fluid. Thus, each detector is separated from the sample by a different mass of moderating material. The specification makes clear that this subject matter is essential at: Fig. 1 and Fig. 4; Fig. 3, step 90; and [0075], [0078-81], [0091], [0096], [0109-0117], [0133].
6. A skilled artisan would be unable to practice the claimed process without the specific detector arrangement disclosed (MPEP 2172.01, MPEP 2164.08( c)). That it, one would be unable to perform step d) as recited in claim 1 because one would not be able to “take into account” data relating to “various spatial temperature distributions for the group of detectors” without arranging the detectors in the essential manner disclosed. Similarly, one would be unable to make and use the device recited in claim 11 to perform the step d) of claim 1 without the particular essential detector arrangement as described in the specification.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
9. Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by the recited step of “taking into account a calibration database.” Based on the specification, it appears that Applicant means this step to encompass generating a calibration database. Moreover, claim 1 recites a step of “estimating a concentration of the isotope in the fluid” twice (this limitation is present in both step D) and dii), making it unclear whether both steps are required.
10. Further regarding claims 1 and 2, it is also unclear what is encompassed by the limitation “various spatial temperature distributions through the group of detectors.” What exactly is a spatial temperature distribution? This limitation is further unclear in view of claim 2’s recitation of “a spatial temperature distribution across the group of detectors.” Is this one of the “various” distributions recited in claim 1?
11. Further regarding claim 2, the further limitation of step dii) is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whether the recitation in claim 2 is describing the manner in which the estimating step of dii) is performed or whether it is introducing an additional action that is undertaken in step dii). It is also unclear whether the selection of a closest calibration step is a positively recited action or merely a result of “implementing an optimization algorithm.”
12. Regarding claim 11, the recitation of the processing unit is unclear. The processing unit is “configured to implement step d) of claim 1, which includes “based on measurements from c),” Step c) is “measuring with each detector…a quantity representative of an amount of neutrons reaching the detector.” Claim 11 seems to indicate that the processing unit is both implementing steps c) and d) of the method of claim 11 and also taking further measurements from the detectors. Is the processor of claim 11 implementing the method of claim 1?
13. Regarding claims 12 and 13, it is unclear whether there are a plurality of layers of moderating material, because claim 11 introduces a plurality of neutron detectors and claim 12 introduces a layer of moderating material associated with each neutron detector. However, claim 13 refers to only a single layer. Further, the claim 13 recitation “formed from various moderating materials” is unclear. Does the layer comprise multiple moderating materials? Or is the layer made of a single moderating material selected from various moderating materials.
14. Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 because it depends on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
16. For applicant's benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
17. 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.
18. Claims 1, 5, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukei in view of Raupach et al., WO 2019115458 (the below citations are to the attached Espacenet translation).
19. Regarding claim 1, Shukei discloses a method for determining the concentration of an isotope in a fluid, the isotope absorbing neutrons (column 2, lines 50-54), the method comprising:
a) placing a plurality of neutron detectors(56, 58, 60, 62) respectively at various distances from the fluid (34), the neutron detectors forming a group of detectors (see Fig. 2)
b) irradiating the fluid by means-of a neutron-emitting source (50) the neutron-emitting source being placed so that neutrons emitted by the neutron-emitting source pass through the fluid before reaching the neutron detectors (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3; column 5, lines 23-30);
c) measuring, with each detector of the group of detectors, a quantity representative of an amount of neutrons reaching the detector (column 5, lines 30-34) and
d) based on the measurements resulting from c), estimating a concentration of the isotope in the fluid (column 5, lines 35-60).
Shukei further takes into account the temperature of the fluid “to compensate for the error introduced by the temperature effects” and based on the measurements from the neutron detectors and the temperature measurement, estimates the concentration of the isotope in the fluid (column 5, line 60 through column 6, lines 45).
Shukei does not use a spatial temperature distribution. Raupach teaches a method of determining the concentration of a neutron absorber in a fluid ([0002-5]), comprising taking into account a calibration database (Fig. 7, ref. 80) containing a measurement from a neutron detector (N and 18) and a spatial temperature distribution (TI and TA), and using both measurements to estimate a concentration of the isotope in the fluid (see [0066], [0075-80]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the temperature correction methodology of Raupach with the method of Shukei for the predictable purpose of providing a temperature correction that is dependent on the isotope concentration and that corrects for a temperature gradient ([0023-6]).
20. Regarding claim 5, the modification of Shukei as taught by Raupach makes claim 1 obvious. Shukei further discloses a method wherein the fluid lies in a duct, the sensors being placed around the duct (see Figs. 2 and 3).
21. Regarding claim 7, the modification of Shukei as taught by Raupach makes claim 1 obvious. Shukei further discloses a method wherein the quantity measured by each detector is: a count rate of neutrons detected by the detector (column 5, lines 30-34).
22. Regarding claim 10, the modification of Shukei as taught by Raupach makes claim 1 obvious. Shukei further discloses a method wherein the isotope is boron (see column 3, lines 30-45 and column 5, line 37). Although Shukei does not explicitly state that its method is measuring B-10 concentration, a person of ordinary skill would recognize this to be the case because natural boron contains both the B-10 and B-11 isotopes, and it is the B-10 isotope that is an effective neutron absorber.1
23. Regarding claim 11, Shukei discloses a device (Figs. 2 and 3) for estimating a concentration of an isotope in a fluid, the isotope being able to absorb absorbing neutrons(column 2, lines 50-54), the fluid lying in an enclosure (32), the device comprising: a neutron-emitting source (50); a plurality of neutron detectors (56, 58, 60, 62), arranged to be respectively placed at various distances from the enclosure, and forming a group of detectors (see Figs. 2 and 3); the neutron neutron-emitting source being placed so that some of the neutrons emitted by the neutron-emitting source pass through the fluid before reaching the detectors (see Figs. 2 and 3 and column 5, lines 15-34).
Raupach teaches a similar device (Fig. 7) comprising a processing unit (80) that is connected to the detectors and configured to implement step d) of the method recited in claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the processing unit of Raupach with the method of Shukei for the predictable purpose of providing a temperature correction that is dependent on the isotope concentration and that corrects for a temperature gradient ([0023-6]).
Allowable Subject Matter
24. Claims 2, 6, 8, and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-272-6878. 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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 See “Neutron absorbers” in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_capture.