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 filed 07/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As acknowledged in the prior Office action, Okazaki does not explicitly teach determining an accumulated radiation level for each detector. Williams was relied upon to teach the missing limitations. The rejection below does not change that basis but has been revised to provide additional explanation of Williams’s teaching. Applicant argument that Williams does not teach the missing feature is not persuasive since the argument addresses Williams individually rather than the proposed combination. Okazaki teaches the plurality of detectors, corresponding electronic signals, signal processing unit, and computing device that receives and processes detector specific data [0043, 0057-0058]. Williams teaches extracting cumulative dose from one or multiple dosimeter sensors and sending the resulting data to a computing device for processing and storage [0133, 0135]. Williams further discloses that a detector generates signals that are converted into photon count data and a computing device processes and converts the photon count data into dose information [0138, 0151]. Therefore, although Williams’s dosimeter material physically retains the radiation exposure, Williams nevertheless teaches determining the numerical cumulative dose from electronically generated data. In addition, claim 1 requires the computing device to “determine an accumulated radiation level”, and does not require the computing device itself to perform the accumulation of successive electronic signals. Williams’s cumulative dose teaching therefore supplies the feature acknowledged as absent from Okazaki. Applicant’s argument that the combination would be contrary to Okazaki’s principle of operation is not persuasive because Okazaki’s existing defect detection comparisons could continue while the computing device additionally determines accumulated radiation levels.
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 radiation defect detection system and method comprising:
a plurality of detectors including individual sensor portions 50a-50j and 51a-51j 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, 0055, 0057, 0058, 0071];
a signal processing unit 52 configured to receive the radiation electronic signal from each detector and output data derived from the radiation electronic signals [0057-0060, 0071-0073]; and
a computing device configured to receive the data from the signal processing unit and determine a radiation level for each detector [0057-0058, 0071-0075].
Okazaki further discloses that the radiation measurement may be an integrated value corresponding to an intensity area A1 of the detected radiation intensity over a sampling interval. The integrated value is stored in controller 52 as a measured value, and data storage processing device compares integrated values S1 and S2 and determines differences between those values [0073-0075], thus teaching accumulating detected radiation intensity over at least a sampling interval and associating the resulting measurement with the particular sensor that produced the measurement.
Okazaki does not explicitly teach determining an accumulated radiation level for each detector over multiple separate radiation measurements or exposure events.
Williams teaches a radiation dosimeter detection system and method comprising control electronics configured to extract cumulative dose from multiple dosimeters [0135] comprising a detection unit 12 that obtains dose information from one or more dosimeter sensors 14 and sends the dose information to computing device 16 for processing, storage, and display [0133], wherein the detection unit extracts dose information from one or multiple dosimeter sensors 14 [0135]. Williams further teaches an electronic signal processing chain in which a detector 40detectsradaition responsive light emitted from a dosimeter sensor and generates light signals 42 representing the detected photons. Circuitry 44 receives and processes electronic signals 42 and generates photon counting signals 46, which is output to computing device 16 [0138]. The photon counting signal is passed to computing device 16 for processing and conversion of the photon count information into dose information [0151]. Thus, although the dosimeter sensor initially stores radiation exposure, Williams’s computing device determines a numerical cumulative radiation level from electronic data generated and processed in response to the radiation exposure. Williams further teaches reading cumulative dose after one or multiple readings of instantaneous dose rate and after a series of radiation doses occurring at different times [0144], thus teaching the desirability of determining cumulative radiation exposure over multiple radiation events rather than monitoring only individual radiation measurements. As such, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Okazaki’s data storage processing device according to the claimed configuration as taught by Williams so that the total radiation exposure corresponding to each detector could be monitored over multiple measurements of radiation events, thereby providing more complete radiation exposure information than an individual measurement alone.
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
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 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