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 Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendment filed 15 October 2025 wherein: claims 1, 16, 24, and 30 are amended; claims 5-14, 17-19, 22-23, 27, 29, and 33 are canceled; claims 1-4, 15-16, 20-21, 24-26, 28, 30-32, and 34-36 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (“Arguments”), see Remarks (page 8, first line through page 12, last line), filed 15 October 2025, with respect to claims 1-4, 15-16, 20-21, 24-26, 28, 30-32, and 34-36 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Some arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner acknowledges:
The prior 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections of claim 25 have been overcome by the amendment to claim 24 upon which claim 25 depends.
The prior objection to and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 16 has been overcome by amendment.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the cited prior art are moot because of the newly cited prior art in this rejection.
Applicant traverses the official notice regarding the use of a filter in claim 1. Examiner respectfully maintains the position that the previously claimed use of a filter was so well-known as to be “capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute.” MPEP § 2133.03, (citing In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970) (citing In re Knapp Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 132 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1961))). The use of official notice in the Non-Final rejection was only used for such well-known facts so as to hopefully focus prosecution on finding allowable subject matter, rather than providing evidence of the well-known facts. Regardless, because Applicant has traversed and recited a more specific filter, a reference showing the claimed use of a filter is relied upon in the rejection below. The clamed housing and groove were also so well-known so as to be instantly and immediately obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. To address the more specifically claimed filter, a new reference is relied upon in the rejection of claim 1 below.
Applicant similarly traverses the official notice taken in the Non-Final Rejection that image sensors comprising one or more photodiodes as recited in claim 4 and the routine calibration steps in claims 34-36 were well-known and routinely used in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed. Examiner respectfully maintains the positions that such image sensors and calibration steps were very well-known. Because Applicant has traversed, references supporting these positions are provided in the rejections below. If there is some more specific photodiode or calibration step which Applicant considers novel and nonobvious, Examiner recommends amending the claims to incorporate such features.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 § U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claims 1 and 30
Claims 1 and 30 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Regarding claims 1 and 30, the limitation “storage phosphor element” uses the generic placeholder “element” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to a storage phosphor plate (Applicant’s specification, ¶ 6; claim 2 as originally filed) and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
Claims 15-16
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation “a housing”, and then the limitation “the housing”. However, claim 1, upon which claim 15 depends, also recites “a housing”. Claim 15 is unclear as to whether the limitation “a housing” therein is the same or different from the housing of claim 1. According, the limitation “the housing” in claim 15 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected due to its dependence on claim 15. Further, the claim 16 limitation “the housing” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the same reasons described above regarding claim 15.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–-----103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 C.F.R. § 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 20-21, and 26
Claims 1-4, 20-21, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Frank (US 2015/0309186 A1) in view of Boutet (US 5,065,866 A) and D’Hooge (US 2014/0213841 A1).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Frank discloses a device for radiation dosimetry, the device comprising: a storage phosphor element (storage phosphor plate (SPP) 15) configured to absorb and store ionizing radiation (x-rays or gamma rays); a light source (23) configured to illuminate the storage phosphor element (15); a photodetector (25) configured to capture a light emission from the storage phosphor element (15); a violet filter or near-ultraviolet filter (29; 500 nm filter at the border of violet and near-ultraviolet) positioned between the storage phosphor element (15) and the photodetector (25); a housing (13) comprising a receiving means (between horizontal dashed lines in the housing in Fig. 2, into which storage phosphor element 15 is inserted and removed as indicated by the left-right arrow) configured to receive the storage phosphor element (15); and a computing means configured to correlate an intensity of the light emission captured by the photodetector (25) to a radiation dosage (¶¶ 14-18, 20-21; Figs. 1-5).
While the receiving means in Frank appears to be a groove in Fig. 2, Frank does not expressly disclose in the written description that the receiving means is a groove. Boutet shows a similar storage phosphor cassette assembly including a housing (10, including walls 12, 14, 16, 18, 20) comprising a groove (20) configured to receive a storage phosphor element (storage phosphor plate 25; col. 2, ll. 9-35, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have modified the invention of Frank in view of the teachings of Boutet so that the receiving means is a groove.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Boutet of permitting removable positioning of the storage phosphor plate in a manner which prevents exposure of the plate to light, thereby minimizing latent image degradation (Boutet, col. 2, ll. 9-35).
Frank does not expressly disclose the computing means comprises a processor and a memory operably coupled to the processor, the memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform said correlation.
However, such computing means were well-known and routinely used in the art. For example, D’Hooge discloses a device for radiation dosimetry, the device comprising: a storage phosphor element (2, 3) configured to absorb and store ionizing radiation (gamma rays or x-rays); a light source (4) configured to illuminate the storage phosphor element (2, 3); a photodetector (7) configured to capture a light emission from the storage phosphor element (2, 3; ¶¶ 145-151, 187, Table 2; Fig. 1);
and a computing device (8) comprising a processor and a memory operably coupled to the processor, the memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to correlate an intensity of the light emission captured by the photodetector (7) to a radiation dosage (¶¶ 66, 145-151, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Frank in view of the teachings of D’Hooge to include said computing means.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage of avoiding the need to manually calculate the radiation dosage.
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Frank modified teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the storage phosphor element comprises a photostimulable europium doped BaFBr, or CsBr material (Frank, ¶ 20).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Frank modified teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the photodetector (25) comprises an image sensor comprising one or more photodiodes (Frank, ¶ 18).
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, Frank modified teaches the device of claim 1,wherein the memory has further computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to analyze the light emission to determine the intensity of the light emission (light emission and intensity: Frank, ¶¶ 15-18 and 20-21; memory in view of D’Hooge as described in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 21
Regarding claim 21, Braunlich discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the memory has further computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to generate display data for the radiation dosage and cause the processor to store in the memory the radiation dosage (displaying: Frank, ¶ 21; storing: recording in Frank, ¶ 17; that the storing is in the memory is obvious in view of D’Hooge, see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 26
Regarding claim 26, Frank modified teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the storage phosphor element is a photostimulable storage phosphor element and wherein the light emission is a photo-stimulated light emission (Frank, ¶¶ 14-18, 20-21).
Claim 28
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Frank in view of Boutet and D’Hooge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reisen (US 2009/0129542 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Frank modified teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the storage phosphor element is a photostimulable storage phosphor element and wherein the light emission is a photo-stimulated light emission (see rejection of claim 26 above).
Frank modified does not expressly disclose the storage phosphor element is a photoexcitable storage phosphor element and wherein the light emission is a photo-excited light emission.
However, photoexcitable storage phosphors were also well-known in the art. For example, Reisen discloses a device for radiation dosimetry (Abstract, ¶ 2), the device comprising a storage phosphor element (BaFCl:Sm3+; i.e., samarium-doped BaFCl) wherein: the storage phosphor element is a photoexcitable storage phosphor element and wherein the light emission is a photo-excited light emission (¶ 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Frank in view of the teachings of Reisen so that the storage phosphor element is a photoexcitable storage phosphor element and wherein the light emission is a photo-excited light emission.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Reisen of using a storage phosphor with relatively high sensitivity to X-rays (Reisen, ¶ 130).
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 15-16, 24-25, and 30-32
Claims 15-16, 24-25, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Frank in view of Boutet and D’Hooge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoder (US 2012/0061591 A1).
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Frank modified teaches the device of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose a second housing, wherein the storage phosphor element and the light source are arranged inside the second housing.
Yoder discloses an optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeter comprising a housing wherein components of the dosimeter are arranged inside the housing (¶¶ 6, 145)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have modified the invention of Braunlich in view of the teachings of Yoder to include a second housing, wherein the storage phosphor element and the light source are arranged inside the second housing.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Yoder of shielding the dosimeter from ambient light (Yoder, ¶ 145).
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Frank modified teaches the device of claim 15, wherein the second housing is configured to detachably couple to the computing device (smartphone) is configured to maintain the storage phosphor element in a fixed position and/or orientation relative to the light source and the photodetector (the housing necessarily holds the elements within in fixed positions; see cited portions of Yoder in the rejection of claim 15 above).
One would have been motivated to further modify the invention of Braunlich in view of the further teachings of Yoder to gain an advantage suggested by Yoder of using a smartphone to perform processing operations (Yoder, ¶ 144).
Claim 24
Regarding claim 24, see the rejection of claim 16 above, mutatis mutandis (a smartphone is a portable electronic device). Examiner notes the fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(A).
Claim 25
Regarding claim 25, see the rejection of claim 16 above.
Claim 30
Regarding claim 30, see the rejection of claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Frank modified does not expressly disclose the electronic device is portable. Regarding portability, see the rejection of claim 15 above.
Claim 31
Regarding claim 31, Frank modified teaches the method of claim 30, further comprising exposing the storage phosphor element to the ionizing radiation (x-rays or gamma rays; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 32
Regarding claim 32, Frank modified teaches the method of claim 31, wherein the ionizing radiation comprises at least one of gamma rays or x-rays (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claims 34-35
Claims 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Frank in view of Boutet, D’Hooge, and Yoder as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Ren (Ren, K., et al., “Calibration of the linear response range of x-ray imaging plates and their reader based on image grayscale values”, 2017, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 88, 083115; a copy is attached).
Regarding claims 34-35, Frank modified teaches the method of claim 30, but does not expressly disclose further comprising calibrating the storage phosphor element as claimed.
However, all of the steps recited in claims 34-35 were well-known and routinely practiced in the art. Calibrating a storage phosphor element using predetermined doses of radiation was such a fundamental and well-known technique in the art so as to be instantly and immediately obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For example, Ren discloses a step of calibrating a storage phosphor element (phosphor X-ray imaging plate), wherein the step of calibrating the storage phosphor element comprises: exposing the storage phosphor element to a plurality of predetermined doses of ionizing radiation (predetermined doses of x-rays); illuminating, using a light source (HeNe laser), the storage phosphor element after exposure to each respective predetermined dose; capturing, using a photodetector (photomultiplier tube, PMT), a respective light emission from the storage phosphor element after exposure to each respective predetermined dose; and determining a relationship between intensity of photo-simulated light (PSL) emission and radiation dosage (Abstract, sections 1-5; relationship between PSL and different radiation dosages shown in Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have calibrated the storage phosphor element as claimed.
One would have been motivated to do so to acquire more accurate radiation dosages as compared to not performing calibration and hoping for the best.
Claim 36
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Frank in view of Boutet, D’Hooge, Yoder, and Ren as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Li (US 2012/0068084 A1).
Regarding claim 36, Frank modified teaches the method of claim 35, wherein the step of calibrating the storage phosphor element comprises illuminating (scanning), using the light source, the storage phosphor element for a period of time (i.e., the scanning of the imaging plate inherently takes a period of time to generate photostimulated luminescence (PSL); see Ren, section II).
While Frank modified does not expressly disclose the period of time is predetermined, one of ordinary skill in the art would have instantly and immediately recognized it would have been obvious for this to be the case. For example, Li discloses a scan time for measuring PSL with a PMT is predetermined (typical) as 30 seconds (¶ 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have used a predetermined time.
One would have been motivated to do so to use a desired scan time, adjusting laser power as described in Li (¶ 65) to achieve a desired response, as compared to adjusting scan time or choosing a scan time at random and hoping for the best.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tahon (US 2020/0271796 A1) discloses a radiation dosimeter comprising a phosphor containing layer (Abstract).
Valentino (US 2014/0268601 A1) discloses a printed circuit board device including filters and radiation sensors (Abstract).
Applicant's amendment and traversal of official notice necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §§ 706.07(a), 2144.03(C)-(D). 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 BLAKE RIDDICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1865. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm ET, with flexible scheduling.
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 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Blake C. Riddick, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884