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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed April 29th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 and 12-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pond US 5943223.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (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 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, 5-7, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. WO 2021/003344 in view of Pond US 5943223.
Regarding claim 1, Kwon teaches a radiation detector comprising:(a) a semiconductor conversion device comprising a p-n junction, the semiconductor conversion device configured to develop a voltage when subject to incident radiation (fig 1A #112; pg. 3 para. 3; photodiodes definitionally comprises a p-n junction which develop a voltage when subject to incident radiation); (b) a first switch (fig. 1A #122) configured to move between a first state and a second state when triggered by a threshold voltage (pg. 3 para. 2); wherein the semiconductor conversion device is connected to the first switch such that, when the threshold voltage is developed across the semiconductor conversion device, the first switch is triggered to move from the first state to the second state (pg. 3 para. 2); and (c) an interrogation circuit (fig. 1A #126) operable to determine whether the first MEMS switch is in the first position or the second position, thereby to determine whether the radiation detector has been subjected to a threshold level of radiation associated with the threshold voltage (pg. 3 para. 2).
Kwon fails to teach the switch being a MEMS switch which physically moves between a first position and a second position; rather Kwon teaches an electronic switch which moves between states.
Pond teaches a MEM switch (figs 1, 3, 4 #18) which physically moves between a first position and a second position (col. 6 ln. 34-37) when a threshold voltage is reached (col. 7 ln. 5-30) which has a reduced power loss (abstract; col. 4 ln. 25-38).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the switch being a MEMS switch which physically moves between a first position and a second position as taught by Pond in the detector of Kwon for the purpose of reducing power loss.
Regarding claim 5, Kwon teaches wherein the semiconductor conversion device and the first switch are operable without any further source of electrical power (pg. 4 para. 3; battery powered), and wherein the interrogation circuit is operable, when connected to a source of electrical power, to determine whether the radiation detector has been subjected to the threshold level of radiation whilst the interrogation circuit has not been connected to electrical power (pg. 14 para. 6 – pg. 15 para. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Kwon in view of Pond does not explicitly disclose a second switch configured to move between a first position and a second position when triggered by a threshold voltage, the second switch being connected to the semiconductor conversion device via the first MEMS switch when the first MEMS switch is in the second position; and the radiation detector further comprising a second interrogation circuit operable to determine whether the second switch is in the first position or the second position; however, it has been judiciarily determined that duplication of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). Duplication of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the duplication of parts is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 7, Kwon in view of Pond does not explicitly disclose an apparatus comprising a plurality of radiation detectors as claimed in claim 1; however, it has been judiciarily determined that duplication of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). Duplication of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the duplication of parts is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 14, Kwon teaches the processor is configured to determine further characteristics of the radiation exposure (claim 30; wavelength) in dependence on a position of the first switch determined by the interrogation circuit of each radiation detector (see rejection of claim 1).
Kwon teaches the processor and interrogation circuit being integral and does not specifically disclose processor and interrogation circuit are separate. However, the fact that the parts are separate is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected result (MPEP 2144). Also, making the parts separate would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because making them separate allows for greater bandwidth of the processor.
Regarding claim 15, Kwon teaches wherein in the second state (pg. 3 para. 2), the interrogation circuit is electrically connected to the first switch (fig. 1A; 122 is connected to 126).
Regarding claim 16, Kwon fails to teach a terminal and when in the second position, the first MEMS switch is in physical contact with the terminal.
Pond teaches a terminal and when in the second position, the first MEMS switch is in physical contact with the terminal (fig. 4) which has a reduced power loss (abstract; col. 4 ln. 25-38).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a terminal and when in the second position, the first MEMS switch is in physical contact with the terminal as taught by Pond in the detector of Kwon for the purpose of reducing power loss.
Regarding claim 17, Kwon teaches wherein each radiation detector is configured to detect a different type of radiation (pg. 3 para. 7; UVA, UVB, UV, visible, IR).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. WO 2021/003344 and Pond US 5943223 in further view of Watters US 6806808.
Regarding claim 8, Kwon and Pond fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of radiation detectors is configured to have a different threshold voltage.
Watters teaches wherein each of the plurality of radiation detectors is configured to have a different threshold voltage (col. 3 ln. 43-57) for the purpose of more precise detection (col. 3 ln. 43-57).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein each of the plurality of radiation detectors is configured to have a different threshold voltage as taught by Watters in the detector of Kwon and Pond for the purpose of more precise detection.
Regarding claim 9, Kwon teaches the processor is configured to determine further characteristics of the radiation exposure (claim 30; wavelength) in dependence on a position of the first switch determined by the interrogation circuit of each radiation detector (see rejection of claim 1).
Kwon teaches the processor and interrogation circuit being integral and does not specifically disclose processor and interrogation circuit are separate. However, the fact that the parts are separate is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected result (MPEP 2144). Also, making the parts separate would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because making them separate allows for greater bandwidth of the processor.
Regarding claim 10, Kwon teaches wherein the further characteristics comprise one or more of the duration of the exposure to radiation, and the type of radiation (claim 30; wavelength, i.e. ultraviolet vs infrared radiation).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. WO 2021/003344 and Pond US 5943223 in further view of Morf et al. US 2017/0079610.
Regarding claim 12, Kwon in view of Pond teaches a system comprising the radiation detector of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), and a radiation sensitive apparatus (pg. 2 Background of the Invention para. 2; object),
Kwon in view of Pond fails to teach the system being configured such that, if the interrogation circuit determines that the radiation detector has been subject to the threshold level of radiation, the radiation sensitive apparatus is disabled.
Morf teaches an automatic exposure control which terminates exposure once a dose threshold is reached (para. 0002) for the purpose of protecting the radiation sensitive apparatus from damage from radiation exposure (para. 0002).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system being configured such that, if the interrogation circuit determines that the radiation detector has been subject to the threshold level of radiation, the radiation sensitive apparatus is disabled as taught by Morf in the detector of Kwon and Pond for the purpose of protecting the radiation sensitive apparatus from damage from radiation exposure.
Regarding claim 13, Kwon, Pond, and Morf does not explicitly disclose wherein the radiation detector is located adjacent to the radiation sensitive apparatus, however, it has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. WO 2021/003344 and Pond US 5943223 in further view of Weisfield et al. US 2020/0341156.
Regarding claim 18, Kwon teaches a system comprising the radiation detector of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), and a radiation sensitive apparatus (pg. 2 Background of the Invention para. 2; object).
Kwon and Pond fails to teach the system being configured such that, if the interrogation circuit determines that the radiation detector has been subject to the threshold level of radiation, the radiation sensitive apparatus is caused to perform system diagnostics.
Weisfield teaches the system being configured such that, if the interrogation circuit determines that the radiation detector has been subject to the threshold level of radiation, the radiation sensitive apparatus is caused to perform system diagnostics (para. 0040) for the purpose of correcting voltage drift (para. 0015).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system being configured such that, if the interrogation circuit determines that the radiation detector has been subject to the threshold level of radiation, the radiation sensitive apparatus is caused to perform system diagnostics as taught by Weisfield in the system of Kwon and Pond for the purpose of correcting voltage drift.
Regarding claim 19, Kwon and Pond fails to teach where the system diagnostics comprises a memory check or reconfiguration.
Weisfield teaches where the system diagnostics comprises a memory check or reconfiguration (para. 0040; changing voltage is reconfiguration) for the purpose of correcting voltage drift (para. 0015).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have where the system diagnostics comprises a memory check or reconfiguration as taught by Weisfield in the system of Kwon and Pond for the purpose of correcting voltage drift.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gowda et al. WO 2023/182977 teaches a radiation sensor (22) which is connected to a MEMS switch (46) which connects the sensor to an interrogation circuit (48) and is triggered on a regular periodic interval; wherein the interrogation circuit triggers an alarm when a threshold radiation is reached (para. 0042).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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 number for the organization where this application or processing 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.
/RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights