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 .
Request for Interview
In view of the foregoing instant office action, it is respectfully submitted that if Applicant has any questions or concerns with said instant office action, the Examiner respectfully invites Applicant to contact the Examiner at the telephone number appearing below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues, inter alia, that Shinsho merely discloses that an “amount” of gamma rays and/or TL is proportional to thermal neutron fluence, while claim 1 allegedly requires a distinct “three step” calculation sequence:
(i) deriving a thermoluminescent dose from measured TL intensity and a calibration factor;
(ii) calculating activity using a first conversion formula/factor; and
(iii) calculating neutron intensity using a second conversion formula.
Lastly, that those skilled in the art understand that the calculation formula is related to a measuring method. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The argument is not persuasive at least because the limitations emphasized by applicant are analysis/calibration steps that are conventional and standard decay/activation correction included or implicit in Shinsho in view of Tsai.
Shinsho describes the Al₂O₃:Cr TL plate used with a Cd converter (Cd plates). Thermal neutrons are captured by Cd and produce γ-rays; the γ-rays provide energy to the Al₂O₃:Cr TL plate (i.e., energy storage + TL upon heating is the premise of TL). Shinsho further explains the Cd (n,γ) reaction and the γ-ray production that drives the signal.
Shinsho explicitly describes glow curve recording using an instrument (Fig. 4) and defines TL intensity from the glow curve area. This is consistent with a system that measures TL intensity via an optical detector and records/processes it (as depicted by Fig. 4).
Also, Shinsho’s Fig. 4 is captioned as a “schematic diagram of glow-curve measurement system,” and the figure depicts a photon counting head and a PC, consistent with the claimed photodetector + computing device architecture.
Shinsho: “γ-ray dose … evaluated from the TL intensity … based on a TL-dose conversion table (Fig. 7).” Shinsho also defines TL intensity as the area of the glow curve. That is exactly dose-from-TL using a calibration/lookup table (= calibration factor).
Tsai: gives explicit dose conversion factor and gamma dose calibration factors (Gy/LRU), showing the conventionality of computing dose from TL readout via calibration factors.
Shinsho expressly evaluates dose from TL intensity using a TL-dose conversion table, i.e., a calibration relationship.
Tsai teaches neutron irradiation induces radioactivity (e.g., ⁵⁶Mn activity) and
a luminescence/scintillation readout can be calibrated to activity (Bq) (a conversion factor), and
neutron activation analysis uses equations involving activity A, decay constant λ, irradiation time T, etc.
For example, Tsai describes using TLD-400 chips for neutron activation measurement and measuring induced ⁵⁶Mn activities and using Eq. (1) (neutron activation analysis framework).
And Tsai’s Eq. (1) context explicitly defines activity A, decay constant λ, irradiation time T, etc., which supports that formula-based activity calculations are conventional in this art. As such, the claimed is met.
Applicant further includes a “5 minutes vs. 30 minutes” argument. Notice that such an argument is not commensurate with the claim scope.
Applicant argues Shinsho requires at least ~30 minutes while the present disclosure can measure in ~5 minutes. However, claim 1 does not recite any measurement time, “5 minutes,” or any time-based limitation. Accordingly, alleged differences in measurement duration do not distinguish the claimed subject matter from the applied prior art.
Accordingly, claim 1 remains obvious over Shinsho in view of Tsai for at least the reasons above.
Regarding claim 6, notice that claim 6 is rejected for reasons analogous to claim 1 because it recites the corresponding method steps (heating a TL dosimeter, measuring TL intensity, calculating TL dose via a calibration factor, and using conversion formulas to derive activity and neutron intensity). For the reasons set forth above for claim 1, these steps represent routine implementation of TL measurement plus conventional calibration/conversion operations in activation analysis.
Regarding claim 11, applicant argues that “thermoluminescence” and “scintillation light” are “completely different,” and asserts there is no motivation in Shinsho to “replace” thermoluminescence with scintillation light. The argument is not persuasive.
Tsai teaches scintillation light from irradiated TLD material due to induced activity, and teaches using that light to determine activity after calibration.
Tsai expressly describes that irradiated TLD 400 chips were found capable of emitting “prominent scintillation lights” due to neutron-induced activity, and that such scintillation can be recorded without heating and, after calibration, used to determine the induced activity.
This teaching directly corresponds to claim 11’s recitation of a (thermoluminescent) crystal converting ionizing radiation from an activated body into scintillation light, measuring intensity, and calculating activity using a conversion factor.
The combination is a predictable use of a known technique to improve/augment a similar measurement system.
Shinsho already uses light output from a radiation-exposed dosimeter measured via a photodetector/PC. Tsai provides a known alternative light-output mode (scintillation without heating) for activated dosimeter material and teaches calibrating that output to infer activity.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Tsai’s scintillation-light readout into Shinsho’s measurement framework as a predictable variant/alternative readout pathway (e.g., to simplify/accelerate readout, reduce reliance on heating, and improve QA/measurement practicality). The modification is a straightforward substitution/augmentation of one known light-detection mode for another using the same class of detectors (photodetectors/optical readout) and yields predictable results.
“Second conversion factor” / “second conversion formula” are conventional activity-to-flux conversions.
Claim 11 further recites calculating activity from measured scintillation intensity via a conversion factor, and then calculating neutron intensity using a second conversion formula based on activity. These are conventional activation-analysis operations: activity is related to neutron flux and irradiation time via standard relationships including the exponential build-up term. Activity measurements correspond to neutron reaction rate integrals used to determine neutron field quantities.
Accordingly, even if Shinsho does not spell out the math, the claimed conversion steps are obvious implementations of well-known activation-analysis calculations applied to Tsai’s activity-determination pathway.
Tsai provides an explicit SC calibration factor (conversion factor between readout units and Bq):
“SC calibration factor … 15.3 Bq/LRU … can be used to determine the activity of ⁵⁶Mn.”
That is essentially activity = (scintillation intensity) × (conversion factor), matching claim 11’s “calculating activity … based on intensity … and a second conversion factor.”
Basically, Tsai’s neutron activation analysis framework (Eq. (1) and surrounding definitions) shows formula-based relationships between activity A, decay constant λ, irradiation time T, and neutron-monitoring/source-strength terms, evidencing that activity ↔ irradiation/neutron field parameters are treated by conversion formulas in this field.
So for claim 11: Tsai is very strong for (i) scintillation readout, (ii) computing activity using a conversion factor, and (iii) formula-based conversion from activity to neutron-field parameters.
Therefore, claim 11 remains obvious over Shinsho in view of Tsai.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites the corresponding method steps for the scintillation-light pathway. For the reasons set forth for claim 11 (Tsai’s scintillation-light activity determination and routine activity-to-neutron-intensity conversions), claim 16 remains unpatentable.
Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection(s) of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Shinsho et al. in view of Tsai et al. are maintained for the reasons set forth above.
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinsho et al. (Measurements of γ-rays and neutrons in BNCT irradiation field using thermoluminescent phosphor; The Japan Society of Applied Physics Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Volume 62, Number 1) in view of Tsai et al. (QA measurement of gamma-ray dose and neutron activation using TLD-400 for BNCT beam; Applied Radiation and Isotopes; Volume 137; 2018; Pages 73-79).
With regards to claims 1, 6,11 and 16, Shinsho discloses a neutron measuring system (Figures 2 and 4; see below for references) (Abstract), comprising:
a thermoluminescent dosimeter, comprising a thermoluminescent crystal (i.e., chromium-doped aluminum oxide at the least) (2.1 Overview of technology) (Figure 2), wherein the thermoluminescent crystal absorbs and stores ionizing radiation emitted by a metallic body that has been activated, and the thermoluminescent crystal releases the stored ionizing radiation in the form of thermoluminescence when heated (2. Thermal neutron fluence measurements using TL phosphor Cr doped Al2O3 and Cd converter) (2.1. Overview of technology) (2.2.1. Irradiation field of BNCT) (2.2.2. TL glow-curve measurements);
a photodetector (i.e., see Figure 4, for example, Photon counting head) measuring intensity of the thermoluminescence (i.e., Al2O3: Cr sandwiched between 2 Cd plates); and a computing device (i.e., PC; Figure 4), connected to the photodetector (i.e., Photon counting head; Figure 4) configured to:
receive the intensity of the thermoluminescence from the photodetector (Photo counting head) (i.e., Fig. 5., Color online, TL glow curves for Al2O3: Cr with Cd converter (blue) and Al2O3: Cr without Cd converter (red) after irradiation for 30 min). Notice how Shinsho teaches can measure thermal neutrons without correcting the contribution of the original radiation in the neutron field in relation to the TL intensity for the chromium-doped aluminum oxide.
Shinsho fails to expressly disclose calculating a thermoluminescent dose of ionizing radiation absorbed and stored by the thermoluminescent crystal based on the intensity of the thermoluminescence and a thermoluminescence-dose calibration factor;
using a first conversion formula to calculate activity of the metallic body based on the thermoluminescent dose and a first conversion factor and using a second conversion formula to calculate neutron intensity at which the metallic body is located based on the calculated activity of the metallic body.
PNG
media_image1.png
286
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
456
794
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tsai discloses a quality assurance QA measurements strategy used in BNCT environments with thermoluminescence dosimeters THD where simultaneously gamma-ray dose and neutron activation measurements were performed. TLD’s was treated as individual detectors. Self-irradiation TL signals were applied for in situ calibration. TLD’s were capable of emitting prominent scintillation lights (Abstract) (2.3.3. SC readout) (2.4. Determination of Mn concentration in TLD-400 by neutron activation) (3.3. InsituTLcalibrationofTLD-400).
In view of the utility to improve the systems with excellent calibration factions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Shinsho with Tsai.
With regards to claims 2, 7,12 and 17, Shinsho discloses the metallic body is activated by irradiating the metallic body with a neutron beam emitted by an irradiation device (Figure 2). Notice how an Al2O3: Cr TL plate is sandwiched between Cd plates and a bare Al2O3: Cr TL plate. The Schematic diagram of thermal neutron fluence measurements using TL phosphor Cr doped Al2O3 and Cd converter as irradiated with neutrons in the Mix mode (2. Thermal neutron fluence measurements using TL phosphor Cr doped Al2O3 and Cd converter) (2.2.1. Irradiation field of BNCT).
With regards to claims 3, 8, 13 and 18, Shinsho discloses the thermoluminescent dosimeter is adjacent to the metallic body (Figure 2). Notice how an Al2O3: Cr TL plate is sandwiched between Cd plates and a bare Al2O3: Cr TL plate shown in Fig. 2.
With regards to claims 4, 9, 14 and 19, Shinsho discloses the thermoluminescent dosimeter further comprises the metallic body (Figure 2). Notice how an Al2O3: Cr TL plate is sandwiched between Cd plates and a bare Al2O3: Cr TL plate shown in Fig. 2.
With regards to claims 5 and 10, Shinsho modified discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1, absent some degree of criticality, the recitation of the specific conversion formula as claimed. Notice that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
The examiner takes Official Notice that using conversion formula in order to calibrate the systems as needed is well known. Additionally, calculating a neutron intensity with calibration factors based on a of thermoluminescences, wherein using a actual measured intensity to create calibration factors where the measured intensity is related to induced known materials used in capturing the intensities from the onset, is also well known and considered routine in the art. As such, it is known to include body material factors, dosage, intensity and the like in order to create an improved calibrated system accounting for drift and degradation of the system due to aging and usage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Shinsho to include a conversion formula as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to include the conversion as claimed for the purpose of identifying any particular needs of the application at hand, where these factors are only considered no more than general conditions in routine experimentation within known workable ranges and more dependent on the application at hand to enhance efficiency, reduce costs, or improve quality at the least.
With regards to claims 15 and 20, Shinsho modified discloses the claimed invention according to claims 11 and 16, and further using spectrum analysis (2.2. Measurements of thermal neutron fluence for BNCT irradiation field) (3. Measurements of γ-rays in BNCT irradiation field using BeO ceramic TL phosphor).
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 DJURA MALEVIC whose telephone number is (571)272-5975. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9-5).
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571.272.3995. 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.
/DJURA MALEVIC/Examiner, Art Unit 2884 (571)272-5975
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884