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 Interpretation
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
For claims 1-6 and 10-15, the Examiner notes that the phrase “configured to” does not impart structure to the elements of the claim but instead represents the intended use of the structure elements.
For claim 4, the cloth thermal insulators having a thickness “of anywhere from 0.02 in to 0.06 in” will be interpreted as the insulators having a thickness within the range of 0.02 in to 0.06 in.
For claims 5 and 15, the Examiner notes that the term “portion” does not denote a specific structure or part of the absorber and is sufficiently broad so as to read on any part of the absorber, or the entirety of the absorber.
For claims 14 and 15, the Examiner notes that the phrase “thermally coupled to” does not require a direct structural connection between the thermocouple and the absorber.
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) 1-4, 12, 14, 15, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eigler et al., (US 7,125,163) in view of Van Gucht et al., (US 2018/0099478).
Regarding claims 1-4, Eigler et al., teach a calorimeter comprising a housing (outer part of figure 2A), an aperture body disposed within the housing (column 5 lines 58-60), an absorber within the housing (column 6 lines 56-59), a thermal sensor thermally coupled to the absorber (column 8 line 64 – column 9 line 9), and a fastener (retainer body, column 5 lines 8-12). Eigler et al., do not teach one or more cloth thermal insulators between the absorber and aperture body.
Van Gucht et al., teach thermally insulating cloths (paragraph 0006) wherein the insulating cloths comprise woven or nonwoven fibers, wherein ceramic fibers suitable for forming the insulating cloths (paragraphs 0029, 0032). Van Gucht et al., also teach the thermally insulating cloths having a thickness ranging from 0.05 to 5 mm which is within the range of 0.02 to 0.06 inches recited in claim 4. The Examiner is reading this combination as a substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2141 III B). Van Gucht et al., teach that thermally insulating cloths can be utilized for a wide variety of applications including high and low temperature applications (paragraph 0063). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize thermally insulating cloths with a calorimeter as the thermally insulating cloths are known for high temperature applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Eigler et al., in view of Van Gucht et al., wherein thermally insulating cloths are utilized as substituting one known element for another to obtain predictable results requires only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Eigler et al., teach the absorber spaced from the aperture, fastener (retainer body), and the housing (Figure 2A).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Eigler et al., teach a thermocouple thermally coupled to the absorber (column 8 line 64 – column 9 line 9).
Regarding claim 20, Eigler et al., teach an opening sized to admit an entire beam and being larger than a footprint of the beam (column 5 lines 57-62). The Examiner is reading this limitation as a change in size which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The MPEP states that where the difference between the prior art and the claimed device is a recitation of relative dimensions, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Reference to Eigler et al., specifically teach that the opening is sized to admit an entire beam, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the diameter of the opening such that an entire beam can be admitted. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Eigler et al., in view of Van Gucht et al., wherein the opening ranges from 0.2 to 0.5 inches as changes in size require only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 22, Eigler et al., teach a flange (test mount, column 5 lines 21-22) for mounting the calorimeter.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eigler et al., (US 7,125,163) in view of Van Gucht et al., (US 2018/0099478) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stevenson et al., (US 2018/0090662).
Regarding claim 6, Eigler et al., in view of Van Gucht et al., do not teach an absorber comprising a non-metallic material.
Stevenson et al., teach a method of fabricating X-ray absorbers for microcalorimeters wherein the absorber comprises a semiconducting material (paragraph 0013). Stevenson et al., teach that it is advantageous to provide an absorber comprising a semiconducting material as a means of sensing low energy X-rays (paragraph 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Eigler et al., in view of Van Gucht et al., wherein the absorber comprises a semiconducting material in order to sense low energy X-rays as taught by Stevenson et al.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eigler et al., (US 7,125,163) in view of Van Gucht et al., (US 2018/0099478) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jach et al., (US 2019/0187075).
Regarding claim 13, Eigler et al., in view of Van Gucht et al., do not teach an X-ray calorimeter.
Jach et al., teach an X-ray spectrometer system wherein a microcalorimeter is utilized to detect X-ray signals from a sample (paragraph 0031). Jach et al., teach that it is advantageous to utilize a microcalorimeter as a means of producing digital X-ray data from X-rays detected from a sample (paragraph 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Eigler et al., in view of Van Gucht et al., to utilize an X-ray calorimeter in order to produce digital X-ray data as taught by Jach et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 10, 11, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest a calorimeter comprising one or more cloth thermal insulators as recited in claims 5, 10, 11, and 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWAN A GERIDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3714. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/DWAN A GERIDO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /LYLE ALEXANDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights