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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 12, and 20 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Williams (US 20130248721 A1).
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 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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki (US 20110039017 A1) in view of Williams (US 20130248721 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Okazaki discloses a defect detection system and method comprising:
a plurality of detectors 50, 51 positioned in proximity to the device 4 under inspection, each detector configured to detect radiation and generate a radiation electronic signal whose level varies according to an amount of radiation to which the detector is exposed [0043];
a signal processing unit 52 configured to receive the radiation electronic signal from each detector and output data derived from the radiation electronic signals [0057]; and
a computing device configured to receive the data from the signal processing unit and determine a radiation level for each detector [0057-0058]. Okazaki does not explicitly teach determining an accumulated radiation level for each detector.
Williams teaches a radiation dosimeter detection system and method comprising control electronics configured to extract cumulative dose from multiple dosimeters [0135], Therefor, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Okazaki with the claimed configuration in order to improve radiation monitoring accuracy.
With regards to claims 2, 3, and 6, Okazaki does not explicitly teach the claimed Si PIN diode (which generates an electric current whose level varies according to an amount of radiation to which it is exposed) mounted on a PCB. Nevertheless, those skilled in the art recognize that such configurations were generally known. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Okazaki with the claimed configuration in order to improve sensitivity.
With regards to claim 4, Okazaki discloses a support structure (rollers or metal plate) [0090] comprising a first portion of detectors 50 on a first side (Figs. 8a and 8b).
With regards to claim 5, Okazaki does not teach a second portion of the detectors is positioned on the lower surface with each detector on the lower surface positioned roughly in alignment with a successive one of the detectors positioned on the upper surface. However, such a modification would have been known and considered obvious in order to more accurately inspect both sides of the device. In view of the recited benefit, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Okazaki with the claimed configuration.
With regards to claim 9, Okazaki does not specify wherein the components of the signal processing unit are mounted on a signal processing unit printed circuit board. However, such a modification was generally well known and would have been considered an obvious design choice. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Okazaki with the claimed printed circuit board in order to couple said processing unit to other signal processing components in a reduced package size.
With regards to claim 10, Okazaki does not specifically teach the claimed monitor. However, such a modification was generally well known and would have been considered an obvious design choice. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Okazaki with the claimed display in order to monitor operating conditions.
Claims 7, 8, and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki in view of Williams and Dieckmann (US 9468406 B2).
With regards to claims 7 and 8, Okazaki does not specify the claimed signal processing unit. However, Dieckmann teaches a similar configuration was already known (column 24, lines 15-34) for determining an absorbed dose. Since all the claimed elements were taught by Dieckmann, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Although periodic sampling was not explicitly mentioned, solid-state detectors, like PIN diodes, produce charge pulses when radiation interacts with them, wherein the pulses are typically amplified and then digitized using an ADC to improve noise reduction and accuracy. Therefore, in view of the recited benefits, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Okazaki with the claimed configuration.
With regards to claims 12, 15, 16, and 20, the limitations of the claims have been addressed in the rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8 above and are rejected accordingly.
With regards to claims 13, 14, and 17, Okazaki does not explicitly teach the claimed Si PIN diode (which generates an electric current whose level varies according to an amount of radiation to which it is exposed) mounted on a PCB. Nevertheless, those skilled in the art recognize that such configurations were generally known. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Okazaki with the claimed configuration in order to improve sensitivity.
With regards to claim 18, Okazaki does not specify wherein the components of the signal processing unit are mounted on a signal processing unit printed circuit board. However, such a modification was generally well known and would have been considered an obvious design choice. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Okazaki with the claimed printed circuit board in order to couple said processing unit to other signal processing components in a reduced package size.
With regards to claim 19, Okazaki does not specifically teach the claimed monitor. However, such a modification was generally well known and would have been considered an obvious design choice. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Okazaki with the claimed display in order to monitor operating conditions.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki in view of Williams and Tsuji (US 20130077746 A1).
With regards to claim 11, Okazaki does not teach wherein the computing device is further configured to control operation of an X-ray source configured generate X-ray radiation which is detected by the detectors, and stop the generation of X-ray radiation if the accumulated radiation level from one or more of the detectors exceeds a threshold. However, Tsuji teaches it was already known to monitor exposure dose and to terminate radiation emissions when a threshold value has been reached [0055]. Therefore, in view of avoiding over exposure, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Okazaki with the claimed computing device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm 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, Uzma Alam can be reached on 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights