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
The Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment, filed 11/13/2025. Claims 1, 3-4, 9 and 14 have been amended. Claims 2 has been cancelled. Claims 5-15 were previously objected. Currently, claims 1 and 3-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-4 have been considered but 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.
The indicated allowability of claim 2 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to . Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
This is a second Non-Final Rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "…the volume to be studied…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “comparator responsible for…” Claim 1, in which claim 3 is dependent on, do not establish a comparator. Claim 4 is also rejected based on the use of the comparator disclosed in claim 3.
Claim 3 recites “reference voltage responsible…” Claim 1, in which claim 3 is dependent on, do not establish structure for generating a reference voltage responsible for generating the voltage level used by the comparator.
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 (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.
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schouten (US 2022/0196874).
With regards to claim 1, Schouten discloses a muon detectors [0001] for measuring the flow and direction of each muon [0072], designed for the use of components, preferably in solid state ([0071]; “…the photodetectors 62 are multi-pixel photodiode arrays…”), having multiple measurement planes ([0067]; FIG. 4; 62, 90) (Fig. 2; [0064]; three scintillator bar arrays 32) and such multiple measurement planes are responsible by detecting the flow of charged particles [0072],
wherein each measurement plane of the muon telescope comprises a number N of scintillating bars 70 arranged in two orthogonal directions named X and Y [0072], and each intersection between the m bars arranged in the X direction and the n bars arranged in the Y direction generates a sensitive area named a cell ([0072]; The reference do not specifically name the intersection of X and Y direction bars as a “cell”, however, it would have been a choice of the inventor to designate the name “cell” to the pixels. The Examiner correlates “cell” with pixel. Also, the inventor can also define directionality such defining an X and Y axis to the scintillator bars orthogonal directions.), wherein the scintillating bars present in each plane of measurement of the muon telescope are elements emitting light at each passage of charged particles [0070], and the light generated by the scintillating bars is captured through fiber optic cables and then transmitted to an optical detector ([0072]; “…one or more scintillator bars 70 in each of the orthogonal planes emits scintillation light, which is captured by the WLS fiber 78 and transmitted to the photodetector 62,…”).
With regards to claim 3, Schouten discloses the muon detector, according to claim 1, wherein the muon detector comprises:
at least three measurement planes (Fig. 2; [0064]; three scintillator bar arrays 32), with the distances between them depending on the opening required for the muon telescope to observe a volume to be studied in its entirety and the necessary precision for the central region of the same volume [0072][0073]; and
a light detection system formed by at least one board built with components such as silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) responsible for converting light into electrical signals ([0071]; multi-pixel photodiode arrays; One with ordinary skill within the art would have knowledge that SiPMs are arrays of avalanche photodiodes.);
operational amplifiers ([0067]; preamplifiers) responsible for the electronic coupling and amplification of the SiPM signal ([0071]; “The electrical signals from the photodetectors 62 are amplified…”);
comparator responsible for generating the digital signal, and reference voltage responsible for generating the voltage level used by the comparator (see the 112 rejection above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, 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:
With regards to claim 5, Schouten do not disclose a system for measuring and characterizing large volumes comprising at least one muon telescope according to claim 1, the system comprises four main modules, one measurement and data acquisition module, concentration and transfer module, analysis and transformation module and a systemic presentation and integration module, wherein the measurement data acquisition module comprises a muon telescope, the system may contain a measurement and data acquisition module, wherein said acquisition module consists of a structure of neutron detection that can measure the integral or directional flow of neutrons, depending on the measurement need.
Claims 6-12 and 14-15 are objected due to being dependent on objected base claim 5.
With regards to claim 13, Schouten do not disclose an auto-calibration method of a muon telescope, the muon telescope, according to claim 1, wherein the auto-calibration occurs through the calibration of the central planes and the calibration of the peripheral planes, wherein:
the calibration of the central planes consists of calculating the flow observed by three bars in the same vertical plane and the same flow observed by the most extreme bars, above and below the central bar, and then the maximum efficiency is calculated through the difference between triple and double coincidences as a function of double coincidences;
the calibration of the extreme planes requires geometric simulation to calculate the perfect rate of relationship between triple and double coincidences, and this efficiency calculation is done through the difference between the number obtained through the simulation and the measured one;
wherein the trigger system records double and triple coincidences between planes, not accepting events that generate ambiguous signals recorded in more than one cell per plane;
and once the event is accepted by the trigger system, the particle passing position in each plane and the absolute measurement time are recorded in a memory that can be read by a computer system, and this data can be concentrated and transferred to more complex systems.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zeng et al. (US 2024/0027371)
Botto et al. (US 2021/0156810)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGH H MAUPIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00 pm.
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 at 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.
/HUGH MAUPIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884