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 17 December, 2025, with respect to interpretation under 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(f) interpretation of claim 1 has been withdrawn. Further, withdrawal of the 112(f) interpretation renders the rejections under 112(a) and 112(b) moot.
Applicant's arguments filed 17 December, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the claims 1-3, 5, and 7-10 the applicant argues the rejection under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) is improper over Watters et al. US 6806808 because Watters fails to teach “a semiconductor conversion device configured to develop a voltage when subject to incident radiation” and “a first switch configured to move between a first state and second state when triggered by a threshold voltage”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Walter states that the sensor 116 may be a passive or active sensor which records some physical or chemical interaction (col. 6 ln. 19-23) and lists many embodiments of said sensor, which includes “a semiconductor conversion device configured to develop a voltage when subject to incident radiation” (col. 8 ln. 16-17; semiconductor conversion devices are well known embodiments of a radiation sensor and would be envisioned by one of ordinary skill in the art on a reading of Walter).
Although fig. 4A is a mechanical switch which responds to a change in temperature, fig. 4A is only a single exemplary embodiment of said switch (col. 14 ln. 5). Walter includes embodiments of a mechanical or electronic switch which corresponds to the physical or chemical event of the sensor (col. 14 ln. 8-11). Under the embodiment of said sensor where one is measuring radiation, Walter does have “a first switch configured to move between a first state and second state when triggered by a threshold voltage.”
Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 17 December, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the claims 1-3, 5, and 7-10 the applicant argues the rejection under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) is improper over Kwon et al. WO 2021/003344 because Kwon fails to teach “a first switch configured to move between a first state and second state when triggered by a threshold voltage” because generating a signal is not “move.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of moving between a first state and a second state, is causing any action which causes a change from one state to another. The art commonly uses switches which do not physically move from a first physical state to another (i.e. transistors). The wake up signal of Kwon causes a change from a sleep mode (first state) to a wake mode (second state) thus moving from one state to another.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 7-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Watters et al. US 6806808.
Regarding claim 1, Watters discloses a radiation detector (fig. 1; col. 8 ln 16, 51; col. 18 ln. 25-35) comprising: (a) a semiconductor conversion device configured to develop a voltage when subject to incident radiation (col. 6 ln. 17-36; col. 8 ln. 40-43); (b) a first switch (fig. 4A; col. 14 ln 5-39) configured to move between a first state and a second state when triggered by a threshold voltage; 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 (fig. 4A; col. 8 ln. 55-67); and (c) an interrogation circuit (fig. 1 #102; col. 6 ln 10-16; col. 15 ln. 37- col. 16 ln. 5) operable to determine whether the first switch is in the first state or the second state, thereby to determine whether the radiation detector has been subjected to a threshold level of radiation associated with the threshold voltage (col. 18 ln. 25-35).
Regarding claim 2, Watters discloses wherein the first switch is a MEMS switch (col. 13 ln. 14-57).
Regarding claim 3, Watters discloses wherein the first switch comprises a latching circuit (fig. 4A; col. 8 ln. 48-67; col. 14 ln 5-39).
Regarding claim 5, Watters discloses wherein the semiconductor conversion device and the first switch are operable without any further source of electrical power (col. 2 ln 49-62; col. 6 ln. 21-33), 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 (col. 15 ln. 64-col. 16 ln. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Watters discloses an apparatus (fig. 5A #500) comprising a plurality of radiation detectors (fig. 5A Detector) as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Watters discloses wherein each of the plurality of radiation detectors is configured to have a different threshold voltage (col. 3 ln. 43-57).
Regarding claim 9, Watters discloses a processor (fig. 1A #106; fig. 5A #522) in communication with the interrogation circuit (fig. 1A #102; ) of each radiation detector (fig. 5A Detector), and configured to determine further characteristics of the radiation exposure in dependence on a state of the first switch determined by the interrogation circuit of each radiation detector (col. 2 ln. 36-37; determining the identity and state determines characteristics).
Regarding claim 10, Watters discloses wherein the further characteristics comprise one or more of the duration of the exposure to radiation, and the type of radiation (col. 1 ln. 18; time integrated exposure measures duration of exposure).
Regarding claim 17, Watters discloses wherein each radiation detector (fig. 5A) is configured to detect a different type of radiation (col. 16 ln. 38-40; col. 8 ln. 17).
Claim 1 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. WO 2021/003344.
Regarding claim 1, Kwon discloses a radiation detector comprising: (a) a semiconductor conversion device configured to develop a voltage when subject to incident radiation (fig. 1A #112; pg. 3 para. 3); (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 switch is in the first state or the second state, 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).
Regarding claim 15, Kwon discloses wherein in the second state (pg. 3 para. 2), the interrogation circuit is electrically connected to the first switch (fig. 1A; 122 is electrically connected to 126).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watters et al. US 6806808 in view of Liu et al US 2017/0117109.
Regarding claim 4, Watters teaches wherein the first switch is a MEMS switch (col. 13 ln. 14-57) rather than wherein the first switch comprises a relay circuit. However, Liu teaches that MEMS switching circuits can be used as relay circuits (para. 006) for the purpose of having a circuits which has lower power dissipation (para. 0006). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first switch be a relay circuit since it was known in the art that MEMS switching circuits can be used as relay circuits for the purpose of having a circuits which has lower power dissipation.
Claim 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watters et al. US 6806808.
Regarding claim 6, Watters does not explicitly teach comprising a second switch configured to move between a first state and a second state when triggered by a threshold voltage, the second switch being connected to the semiconductor conversion device via the first switch when the first switch is in the second state; and the radiation detector further comprising a second interrogation circuit operable to determine whether the second switch is in the first state or the second state; 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, Watters teaches a processor (fig. 1A #106; fig. 5A #522) in communication with the interrogation circuit (fig. 1A #102) and the second interrogation circuit of the radiation detector (fig. 5A Detector), and configured to determine further characteristics of the radiation exposure in dependence on a state of the first switch and a state of the second switch determined by the interrogation circuit and the second interrogation circuit, respectively (col. 2 ln. 36-37; determining the identity and state determines characteristics).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watters et al. US 6806808 in view of Morf et al. US 2017/0079610.
Regarding claim 12, Watters teaches a system comprising the radiation detector of claim 1 (see claim 1), and a radiation sensitive apparatus (col. 1 ln. 12-13; many items are radiation sensitive apparatuses).
Watters fails to teach the system being configured such that, if the interrogation circuit determined 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 determined 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 system of Watters for the purpose of protecting the radiation sensitive apparatus from damage from radiation exposure.
Regarding claim 13, Watters 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 Watters et al. US 6806808 in view of Weisfield et al. US 2020/0341156.
Regarding claim 18, Watters 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 system 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 device of Watters for the purpose of correcting voltage drift.
Regarding claim 19, Watters 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 device of Watters for the purpose of correcting voltage drift.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. WO 2021/003344.
Regarding claim 16, Kwon discloses the claimed invention except for Kwon uses an electronic switch (122) instead of a physical switch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have comprising a terminal and when in the second state, the first switch is in physical contact with the terminal since it was known in the art that physical and electronic switches are equivalent structures in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, Dave Porta can be reached on (571)272-2444. 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
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884