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 support layer recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 polymer recited in claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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, at least one lightguide recited in claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 layer of metal recited in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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, at least one micro-antenna recited in claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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, an RFID tag recited in claim 12 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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: A DEVICE COMPRISING A REFLECTION FILM, AT LEAST ONE LIGHT SOURCE, AN OPTICAL SENSOR SYSTEM, AND A RADIOSENSITIVE FILM UNDER EXPOSURE TO IONIZING RADIATIONS FOR MEASURING A DOSE.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0065], line 1, --10-- should be inserted after “a device”.
Paragraph [0065], line 4, --11-- should be inserted after “the reflection film”.
Paragraph [0065], line 5, --11-- should be inserted after “the reflection film”.
Paragraph [0065], line 9, --14-- should be inserted after “the optical sensor system”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Please note that paragraph numbers in a U. S. Patent Application Publication do not correspond to paragraph numbers in the originally-filed specification. The paragraph numbers mentioned above refer to the originally-filed specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
1. (Proposed Amendments) A device for measuring [[the]] a dose (a lack of an antecedent basis) delivered through a radiosensitive film under an exposure to ionizing radiations, the device comprising:
[[-]] a reflection film having an inner face and an outer face (a positive recitation of an outer face) opposite to the inner face, the inner face being adapted to reflect light;
[[-]] at least one light source arranged to emit at least one light beam towards the inner face of the reflection film;
[[-]] a radiosensitive film having a first face facing the inner face of the reflection film and a second face opposite to the first face; and
[[-]] an optical sensor system having a first face facing the second face of the radiosensitive film and adapted to receive the at least one light beam (a previously recited limitation) from the at least one light source after a reflection from the inner face of the reflection film, the optical sensor system further having a support layer and a second face opposite to the first face,
wherein the first face of the optical sensor system comprises a 2-D array of one or more photoresistor units and/or semiconductor units, the 2-D array of one or more photoresistor units and/or semiconductor units being fixed to [[a]] the support layer;
wherein the reflection film, the radiosensitive [[film]] film, and the 2-D array of one or more photoresistor units and/or semiconductor units are essentially parallel, and
wherein the at least one light source is not located between the inner face of the reflection film and the first face of the radiosensitive film.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
2. (Proposed Amendments) The device of claim 1, wherein the reflection film, the radiosensitive [[film]] film, and the support layer of the optical sensor system are flexible.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
3. (Proposed Amendments) The device of claim 1, further comprising a polymer, (a positive recitation of a polymer) wherein the device is encapsulated in [[a]] the polymer.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
7. (Proposed Amendments) The device of claim 1, further comprising at least one lightguide.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
10. (Proposed Amendments) A system comprising:
the device of claim 1;
a first connection; (a positive recitation of a first connection)
a readout integrated circuit unit connected to the optical sensor system of the device via [[a]] the first connection;
a second connection; and (a positive recitation of a second connection)
a processing unit connected to the readout integrated circuit unit via [[a]] the second connection.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
11. (Proposed Amendments) The system of claim 10, wherein the second connectionunit (a previously recited limitation in claim 10) and the processing unit comprises at least one micro-antenna in communication with the processing unit.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
12. (Proposed Amendments) The system of claim 10, wherein the second connectionunit (a previously recited limitation in claim 10) and the processing unit [[is]] comprises an RFID tag.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
13. (Proposed Amendments) The system of claim 10, wherein the processing unit [[(24) is]] comprises a control remote system.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
14. (Proposed Amendments) A method for measuring a dose delivered through a radiosensitive film under an exposure to ionizing radiations
measuring [[said]] the dose with a device of (same as other dependent claims) claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
15. (Proposed Amendments) A method for measuring a dose delivered through a radiosensitive film under an exposure to ionizing radiations comprising:
measuring [[said]] the dose with a system of (same as other dependent claims) claim 10.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites a limitation “a control remote system” in line 2. However, the specification fails to describe a structure and a function of a control remote system. 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 1-9, Donahue et al. (U. S. Patent No. 5,637,876 A) disclosed a device comprising:
at least one light source (24);
a radiosensitive film (10) (column 6, lines 20-39); and
an optical sensor system (34) (column 6, line 63 - column 7, line 18).
However, the prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggested a device comprising:
a reflection film having an inner face and an outer face opposite to the inner face, the inner face being adapted to reflect light;
at least one light source arranged to emit at least one light beam towards the inner face of the reflection film;
a radiosensitive film having a first face facing the inner face of the reflection film and a second face opposite to the first face;
an optical sensor system having a first face facing the second face of the radiosensitive film and adapted to receive the at least one light beam from the at least one light source after a reflection from the inner face of the reflection film, the optical sensor system further having a support layer and a second face opposite to the first face,
wherein the first face of the optical sensor system comprises a 2-D array of one or more photoresistor units and/or semiconductor units, the 2-D array of one or more photoresistor units and/or semiconductor units being fixed to the support layer;
wherein the reflection film, the radiosensitive film, and the 2-D array of one or more photoresistor units and/or semiconductor units are essentially parallel, and
wherein the at least one light source is not located between the inner face of the reflection film and the first face of the radiosensitive film.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Enger et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,656,369 B2) disclosed a radiation dosimeter.
Crohn et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,619,749 B2) disclosed a dosimetry device for a quantification of radiation.
Friedman (U. S. Patent No. 10,525,285 B1) disclosed an ionizing-radiation beam-monitoring system.
Liu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,379,227 B2) disclosed a radiation-dose measuring method.
Lewis et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,268,029 B2) disclosed an efficient method for a radiochromic-film dosimetry.
Rink et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,000,401 B2) disclosed a fiber-optic radiochromic dosimeter probe and a method.
Micke et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,604,415 B2) disclosed a radiation dosimetry method.
Patel (U. S. Patent No. 8,115,182 B1) disclosed a personal and area self-indicating radiation-alert dosimeter.
Patel (U. S. Patent No. 7,476,874 B2) disclosed a self-indicating radiation-alert dosimeter.
Fung et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,361,908 B2) disclosed a radiation dose estimation for radiochromic films based on measurements at multiple absorption peaks.
Pageau et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,232,610 B1) disclosed a dosimetry apparatus and a method.
Donahue et al. (U. S. Patent No. 5,767,520 A) disclosed an apparatus comprising a radiation dosimetry and a method.
Donahue et al. (U. S. Patent No. 5,637,876 A) disclosed an apparatus and a method for a radiation dosimetry.
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 on (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