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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 (WO 2019/092308 A1).
With respect to independent claim 1, D1 teaches a method for determining an amount of radiation having a wavelength of 1 zm - 10 pm see p. 7, lines 24 – 30; see p. 8, lines 14 – 15 or particle radiation irradiated on a sensor material, the method comprising;
- exposing see p. 6, lines 1 – 5 the sensor material to said radiation having a wavelength of 1 zm - 10 pm or particle radiation for a period of time,
- subjecting see p. 6, lines 5 – 6 and 12 – 17 the exposed sensor material to a measurement by a device configured to measure intensity of a colour,
- measuring see p. 6, lines 12 – 17 and p. 11, lines 10 – 15 the intensity of the colour of reflected, transmitted or detected light, and
- determining see p. 6, lines 12 – 17 and p. 11, lines 10 – 15 the amount of radiation to which the sensor material has been exposed, based on the measured intensity of the colour of the reflected, transmitted or detected light,
wherein the sensor material comprises a material represented by formula (I)
(M’)-8(M’’M’’’.)6O24(X,X’)2:M’’’’ formula (I)
wherein
- M’ represents calcium or a monoatomic cation of an alkali metal selected from Group 1 of the IUPAC periodic table of the elements, or any combination of such cations;
- M’’ represents a trivalent monoatomic cation of an element selected from Group 13 of the IUPAC periodic table of the elements, or of a transition element selected from any of Groups 3 - 12 of the IUPAC periodic table of the elements, or any combination of such cations;
- M’’’ represents a monoatomic cation of an element selected from Group 14 of the IUPAC periodic table of the elements, or of an element selected from any of Groups 13 and 15 of the IUPAC periodic table of the elements, or of Zn, or any combination of such cations;
- X represents an anion of an element selected from Group 17 of the IUPAC periodic table of the elements, or any combination of such anions, or wherein X is absent;
- X’ represents an anion of one or more elements selected from Group 16 of the IUPAC periodic table of the elements, or any combination of such anions, or wherein X' is absent; and
- M’’’’ represents a dopant cation of an element selected from rare earth metals of the IUPAC periodic table of the elements, or from transition metals of the IUPAC periodic table of the elements, or of Ca, Ba, Sr, TI, Pb, or Bi, or any combination of such cations, or wherein M’’’’ is absent; with the proviso that at least one of X and X’ is present see p. 3, line 21 – p. 4, line 19; p. 17, line 18 – p. 18, line 29.
With respect to dependent claims 2 – 3, D1 teaches on p. 11, lines 16 – 35 wherein the determining the amount of radiation to which the sensor material has been exposed is carried out by comparing the measured intensity of the colour of the reflected, transmitted or detected light to a database comprising measured intensity values and corresponding radiation values and wherein the database comprises at least one of a lookup table and a graph.
With respect to dependent claim 5, D1 teaches in p. 7, lines 14 – 20 wherein the radiation is gamma radiation.
With respect to dependent claim 6, D1 teaches a measuring unit 6 configured to measure the amount of visible light, and therefore, anticipates wherein the device configured to measure intensity of a colour is selected from the group consisting of a colour spectrophotometer, a photodetector, and a camera.
With respect to dependent claims 7 – 16, D1 teaches in p. 3, line 21 – p. 4, line 19 and on p. 17, line 18 – p. 18 line 29 wherein M’ represents a monoatomic cation of an alkali metal selected from Group 1 of the IUPAC periodic table of the elements, or any combination of such cations, with the proviso that M’ does not represent the monoatomic cation of Na alone, wherein M' represents a combination of at least two monoatomic cations of different alkali metals selected from a-thegroup consisting of Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, and Fr, wherein M’’represents a trivalent monoatomic cation of a metal selected from the group consisting of Al and Ga, or a combination of such cations, wherein M’’ represents a trivalent monoatomic cation of B, wherein M'’’’ represents a monoatomic cation of an element selected from the group consisting of Si and Ge, and a combination of such cations, wherein M’’’’ represents a monoatomic cation of an element selected from the group consisting of Al, Ga, N, P, As, and any combination of such cations., wherein X represents an anion of an element selected from a-the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, I, and At, or and any combination of such anions, wherein X’ represents a monoatomic or a polyatomic anion of one or more elements selected from the group consisting of O, S, Se, Te, and any combination of such anions, wherein M’’’’ represents a cation of an element selected from the group consisting of Yb, Er, Tb, Eu, and any combination of such cations, and wherein M'’’’ represents a cation of an element selected from the group consisting of Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Ag, W, and Zn, or any combination of such cations.
With respect to dependent claim 20, D1 teaches on p. 6, lines 7 – 11 dosimeter for gamma irradiation, comprising the material represented by formula (I) of claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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 CFR 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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
The teaching of D1 has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 4, D1 is silent with wherein the period of time the sensor material is exposed to radiation is up to ten years. However, on p. 11, lines 16 – 35 D1 discloses that the exposition time depends on the type of radiation. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of D1 in order to select the time knowing or by experiencing without exercising an inventive activity. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1, and further in view of Levine (US 9,658,101 B1).
The teaching of D1 has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 17, D1 is silent with arranging the sensor material in a polymer matrix.
In column 3, line 53 – column 4, line 18, Levine, a pertinent art, teaches polymer matrix. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of D1 in order to have a substrate that desired material can be distributed. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 19, as discussed above, when modified by Levine, D1 modified by Levine teaches a method for imaging with gamma radiation comprising:
- exposing a substrate comprising the sensor material as defined in claim 1 to gamma radiation;
-subjecting the exposed sensor material to a measurement by a device configured to measure intensity of a colour; and
- generating an image from the measured intensity.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1, and further in view of Jones (US 5,661,310).
The teaching of D1 has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 18, as discussed above D1 teaches- arranging the sensor material comprising a-the material represented by formula (I) as defined in claim 1, to cover at least a part of the space, - using the method according to claim 1 for determining an amount of radiation irradiated on the sensor material, but is silent with method for creating a radiation map within at least a part of a space, - providing the radiation map within the space, based on the determined amount of radiation on the sensor material and its location.
In Abstract, Jones teaches radiation mapping. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of D1 in order to map the radiation dose distribution in desired room or location. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 EST.
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, David Makiya can be reached at (571)272-2273. 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.
KIHO KIM, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884