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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention II (claims 7-12) in the reply filed on 4/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner did not provide the CPC or USPC class schemes for the inventions. Regarding claims 13-20, this is not found persuasive because while the classification of inventions is a factor in considering the search for invention(s) it is not the only factor. Each of the inventions would require different search strategies and queries. The inventions would be classifiable in different CPC schemes, such as: invention I G01T1/26, invention II G21C17/0002, and invention III G01T3/00. While these inventions are classifiable in different schemes, they would also require different search strategies and queries.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-6 have been included by the Examiner in the Examination due to realized similarities after starting search.
Claims 13-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/15/2026.
Claim Objections
The Claims are objected to because each element or step of the claim is NOT separated by a line indentation (See 37 CFR 1.75). Appropriate correction is required. For example, “a second conductive wire” (claim 1) should be separated by a line indentation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3-12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Due to the passive language of the claims, it is not clear of what is being required by the claims and what is merely intended result and/or intended use. The Examiner recommends amending the claims to actively claim the desired required steps of the method of claims 7-12.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by First et al. (US 2022/0365233).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-6, First teaches a detector (100) comprising:
a first conductive wire (wire connected to 118, Fig. 1) and a second conductive wire (wire connected to 120, Fig. 1);
a resistance measurement device (110 and 112) connected to a first end of the first conductive wire and to a first end of the second conductive wire (Fig. 1);
wherein the detector is formed of a material that experiences Radiation Induced Conductivity (RIC) when exposed to radiation ([0022]; [0024]; [0025]).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, First teaches the material is boron or boron nitride ([0022]; [0024]).
Regarding claims 7 and 9-10, First teaches a method of operating a detector comprising a first conductive wire, a second conductive wire, and a resistance measurement device connected to a first end of the first conductive wire and to a first end of the second conductive wire (Fig. 1; [0022]; [0024]; [0025]), the method comprising: placing the resistance measurement device of the detector in a radiation field to measure electrical resistivity of the detector in the radiation field to gauge a strength of the radiation field ([0025]); wherein the detector is formed of a material that experiences Radiation Induced Conductivity (RIC) when exposed to radiation ([0022]; [0024]; [0025]).
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.
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) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over First et al. (US 2022/0365233).
Regarding claims 11-12, First is silent regarding calibration. However, the Examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known in the art to use a standard source and calibrate a detector for the benefit of increasing the accuracy of the detector. Therefore. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to include calibrating the detector using a known field strength and measuring a detector electrical resistivity for the benefit of increasing accuracy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Imaizumi et al. (US 2023/0213668) teaches a neutron beam detecting device (Abstract) with a housing sensor portion (20) and a connection cable (22).
Doty et al. (US 12,034,422) teaches using boron as a resistive sensing material (col. 3, lines 33-35).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carolyn Fin whose telephone number is (571)270-1286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
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.
/CAROLYN FIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights