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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a background ratio mixing device and a foreground and background total counts device claimed in claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Abstract, line 1, “System” should be replaced by --system--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) A radioactive material identification system comprising:
a data processing unit comprising a multi-isotope mixture spectrum data generation framework and a mixture identification unit; (a positive recitation)
a radioactive substance detector [[is]] connected to one input of [[a]] the mixture identification unit;
wherein the multi-isotope mixture spectrum data generation framework is connected to another input of the mixture identification unit, and
wherein the data processing unit has an output connect to a display to exhibit a decision
.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The radioactive material identification system of claim 1, further comprising:
a background ratio mixing device; and (a positive recitation)
a foreground and background total counts device; (a positive recitation)
wherein:
the multi-isotope mixture spectrum data generation framework comprising:
a background template dataset storage having a first output; and
a signal to background ratio generator is connected to [[a]] the background ratio mixing device to provide a second output;
[[said]] the second output is combined with [[said]] the first output to generate a third output;
[[a]] the foreground and background total counts device is combined with [[said]] the third output to form a fourth output.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The radioactive material identification system of claim 2, further comprising:
a first source mixing ratio device having a fifth output; and (a positive recitation)
a second mixing ratio mixing device having a sixth output; (a positive recitation)
wherein:
the multi-isotope mixture spectrum data generation framework, further comprising:
a source template dataset storage having a first output combined with the fifth output;
[[said]] the source template dataset storage having a second output combined with the sixth output;
the fifth output and the sixth output are summed together to form a seventh output;
[[said]] the seventh output is combined with [[said]] the foreground and background total counts device to form an eighth output; and
the fourth output and the eighth output are summed together to produce [[a]] measured spectra.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
4. (Proposed Amendments) The radioactive material identification system of claim 1, wherein: [[said]] the radioactive substance detector comprises a gamma detector and a neutron detector.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
5. (Proposed Amendments) The radioactive material identification system of claim 4, wherein: [[said]] the data processing unit stores data from the gamma detector and the neutron detector through a wireless network.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
6. (Proposed Amendments) The radioactive material identification system of claim 1, wherein: [[said]] the data processing unit comprises a low-cost digital signal processor (DSP), or a field programmable gate arrays (FPGA), or a personal computer (PC) for real-time processing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
7. (Proposed Amendments) The radioactive material identification system of claim 1, wherein:
[[said]] the mixture identification unit utilizes anyone of the following algorithms for processing:
a. Partial Least Squares (PLS);
b. Dense Deep Learning (DDL) model for a multi-input multi-output regression;
c. Linear Regression (LR); and
d. Random Forest Regression (RFR).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
8. (Proposed Amendments) A method to generate [[fast]] a fast radiation signature and an accurate mixture identification comprising the steps:
a) choosing source and background templates from a Gamma Detector Response and Analysis Software (GADRAS)-simulated template libraries;
b) normalizing the chosen source and background templates with respect to a sum of channel counts;
c) assigning a mixing ratio for a background based on a user-set signal-to-background ratio;
d) selecting randomly a mixing ratio for sources, (a lack of an antecedent basis) or [[set]] setting the mixing ratio such that [[the]] a sum (a lack of antecedent basis) of [[said]] assigned mixing ratios (a lack of an antecedent basis) for the background and [[said]] the randomly selected mixing ratio for the sources is equal to [[1.]] 1;
e) [[Add]] adding all mixing ratio multiplied source templates to form [[the]] a source spectrum; and
f) adding source and background spectra to form a measured spectrum.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
9. (Proposed Amendments) The method to generate [[fast]] the fast radiation signature and the accurate mixture identification of claim 8, further comprising the steps:
g) [[Rebin]] rebinning phases of the source and background templates [[phase]] separately using calibration parameters;
h) [[Apply]] applying a Low-Level Discriminator (LLD) parameter to the source and background templates separately;
i) [[Scale]] scaling mixed-source and background spectra with total counts, where [[total]] the total counts is expressed in equation (5) below. Computations of source background counts use of an integration time, a background count rate, and a signal-to-background ratio as mathematically described in equations (6) and (7) below, respectively,
total counts = source counts (foreground counts) + background counts (5)
source counts = background cps x integration time x signal to background [[(6)]] (6), and
background counts = background cps x integration time [[(7)]] (7), where background cps corresponds to background counts per second.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
10. (Proposed Amendments) The method to generate [[fast]] the fast radiation signature and the accurate mixture identification of claim 8, wherein the step f) further comprises the step:
performing a Poisson process on [[said]] the measured spectrum to create a simulated measured spectrum with realistic counting statistics.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “a mixture identification unit” in line 2. However, although material identification algorithms including partial least squares (PLS), a dense deep learning (DDL) model for multi-input multi-output regression, and linear regression (LR) and random forest regression (RFR) algorithms are provided in the specification, the specification fails to describe a mixture identification unit. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “a multi-source mixture spectrum data generation framework” in line 3. However, although an algorithm for a multi-isotope mixture spectrum data generation framework is provided, the specification fails to describe a multi-source mixture spectrum data generation framework. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites a limitation “a background ratio mixing device” in line 4. However, the specification fails to describe a background ratio mixing device. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites a limitation “a foreground and background total counts device” in line 7. However, the specification fails to describe a background ratio mixing device. Furthermore, the specification fails to describe the limitation “a foreground and background total counts device is combined with said third output to form a fourth output” in lines 7-8. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites a limitation “a first source mixing ratio device” in lines 3-4. However, the specification fails to describe a first source mixing ratio device. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites a limitation “a second source mixing ratio device” in lines 5-6. However, the specification fails to describe a second source mixing ratio device. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites a limitation “the seventh output is combined with the foreground and background total counts device to form an eighth output” in lines 8-9. However, the specification fails to describe how to combine the seventh output with the foreground and background total counts device to form an eighth output. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “said mixture spectra generation framework” in line 5, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites a limitation “a multi-source mixture spectrum data generation framework” in line 3.
Claim 2 recites a functional limitation “a foreground and background total counts device is combined with said third output to form a fourth output” in lines 7-8, which renders the claim indefinite. The limitation is unclear because there is no description on how to combine a foreground and background total counts device with the third output to form a fourth output.
Claim 3 recites a functional limitation “the fifth output and the sixth output are summed together to form a seventh output” in line 7, which renders the claim indefinite because boundaries of the claim are not reasonably clear.
During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. It is a best practice to make the record clear during prosecution by explaining the BRI of claim terms, as necessary, including explaining the BRI of any functional language. When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked, the BRI of the “means-plus-function” limitation is restricted to a corresponding structure in the supporting disclosure, and its equivalents (a corresponding specification that identifies and links a structure, material, or act to the function recited in the claim is considered to be part of the claim limitation). When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked and an element is recited along with a function, that element is construed as being capable of performing the function – in other words, the BRI of that element is limited by the function.
It should be kept in mind, however, that there is a distinction between reciting a function compared to reciting an intended use or result. A functional limitation can provide a patentable distinction (limit the claim scope) by imposing limits on the function of a structure, material, or action. Typically, no patentable distinction (no limit on the claim scope) is made by an intended use or result unless some structural difference is imposed by the use or result on the structure or material recited in the claim, or some manipulative difference is imposed by the use or result on the action recited in the claim.
While functional limitations may be properly used in claims, the boundaries imposed by a functional limitation must be clearly defined to be definite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim language that merely states a result to be obtained without providing boundaries on the claim scope (e.g., by not specifying any way to achieve those results) is unclear. Consider the following to determine whether a claim limitation expressed in functional language has clear boundaries: whether one of ordinary skill in the art can determine what structure, material, or act in the claim performs this function; whether the limitation has well defined boundaries or only expresses a problem solved or intended result; and what an anticipatory reference would need to disclose in order to satisfy this claim limitation. These considerations are not all-inclusive or limiting.
When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked, the specification must adequately disclose a corresponding structure, material, or act that performs the function. For “means”-type claims, an adequate disclosure requires that a corresponding structure or material is: (a) disclosed in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand what specific structure or material the inventor has identified to perform the recited function; (b) sufficient to perform the entire function recited in the claim limitation; and (c) clearly linked to the function in the written description.
When the examiner determines that the boundaries of a claim are not reasonably clear, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. Such a rejection puts the applicant on notice that it must fulfill its statutory duty under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to ensure that claim language clearly defines the boundaries of the claim scope sought. In making a rejection, the examiner must identify the specific claim language that is indefinite, and explain why that language renders the boundaries of the claim unclear. When possible, the examiner should suggest how the indefiniteness issues may be resolved.
The boundaries of the functional language are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a data processing unit and a radioactive substance detector, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the radioactive material identification system in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
The limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (“the fifth output and the sixth output are summed together to form a seventh output”) without providing any indication about how the function is performed. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a data processing unit and a radioactive substance detector, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the radioactive material identification system in a certain manner.
Claim 3 recites a functional limitation “the seventh output is combined with the foreground and background total counts device to form an eighth output” in lines 8-9, which renders the claim indefinite. The limitation is unclear because there is no description on how to combine the seventh output with the foreground and background total counts device to form an eighth output.
Claim 3 recites a functional limitation “the fourth output and the eighth output are summed together to produce measured spectra” in line 10, which renders the claim indefinite because boundaries of the claim are not reasonably clear.
The boundaries of the functional language are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a data processing unit and a radioactive substance detector, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the radioactive material identification system in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
The limitation is unclear because it merely states a function “the seventh output is combined with the foreground and background total counts device to form an eighth output”) without providing any indication about how the function is performed. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a data processing unit and a radioactive substance detector, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the radioactive material identification system in a certain manner.
Claim 8 recites a limitation “the mixing ratio” in line 7, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to the mixing ratio for a background in step c) or the mixing ratio for sources in step d).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Morichi (U. S. Patent No. 11,835,477 B2) disclosed a system and a method for identifying nuclear threats.
Pavlovski (U. S. Patent No. 11,500,112 B2) disclosed a classification of a gamma-ray spectrum.
Burr et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,255,985 B2) disclosed a method and an apparatus to use a broad-spectrum energy source to correct a nonlinear energy response of a gamma-ray detector.
Frieder et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,249,199 B2) disclosed an apparatus and a process for optimizing counting times of a detection of radiation using machine learning.
Labov et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,009,622 B2) disclosed a multi-faceted radiation detection and classification system.
Boardman (U. S. Patent No. 10,539,693 B2) disclosed a detection and an identification of radionuclides.
Jordan et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,247,847 B2) disclosed a system and a method for an analysis of fissionable materials by a discrimination of a neutron energy.
De Vita et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,107,934 B2) disclosed a device and a method for detecting neutrons and gamma-rays.
Neuer et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,726,766 B2) disclosed methods and databases for identifying nuclides.
Nelson (U. S. Patent No. 8,946,648 B2) disclosed a dual-range digital nuclear spectrometer.
Ramsden et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,374,993 B2) disclosed an identification of a radioactive isotope.
Rowland et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,180,579 B2) disclosed a real-time gamma-ray signature identifier.
Ruan et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,947,957 B2) disclosed a radiation detection system comprising a multi-channel spectrometer and a method thereof.
Mullikin et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,852,226 B2) disclosed an adaptable radiation area monitor comprising a spectroscopic portal.
Gentile et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,711,661 B2) disclosed a system and a method for resolving gamma-ray spectra.
Klann et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,465,924 B1) disclosed tracking of moving radioactive sources.
Antanouski (U. S. Patent No. 7,429,736 B2) disclosed a system and a device for a detection and an identification of an object using gamma-ray, X-ray, and/or neutron radiation.
Evans (U. S. Patent No. 7,265,353 B2) disclosed a data acquisition, a control, and a spectral-analysis software for multi-channel analyzers.
Chiman Kwan et al., A Fast Framework for Generating Radioactive Mixture Spectra and Its Application to Remote High-Performance Mixture Identification, Electronics 2025, 14, 1688.
Bulent Ayhan and Chiman Kwan, New Results on Radioactive Mixture Identification and Relative Count Contribution Estimation, Sensors 2021, 21, 4155.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allen C. Ho, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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 J. 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.
Allen C. Ho, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Allen C. Ho/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884