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 .
Gray (2005/0232394)
Regarding claim 1, Gray discloses a radiation detector for generating a trigger-out signal for synchronization with an external circuit, comprising: a sensor configured to generate pulses in response to detection of radiation particles by exposure, a counter configured to count the pulse for each frame, a readout circuit configured to read out a count value generated by the counter, a control circuit configured to control the exposure and the readout by a signal, and a trigger signal generating circuit configured to generate a trigger-out signal providing a High interval and a Low interval alternately for each one unit frame, the one unit frame being one or a series of a predetermined number of frames for which a High or a Low interval is set. (Gray, [0022]-[0044], Figures 1-3, note in particular Fig. 2 showing VSYNC signal as a series of high/low intervals used to synchronize the detector frames)
Regarding claim 2, Gray further discloses a start or end point of the High and Low intervals is set at one of a rising edge and a falling edge of an exposure time of the one unit frame. (Gray, Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 3, Gray further discloses each of the High and Low intervals comprises a readout time of the one unit frame. (Gray, Fig. 2, VSYNC signal following the pre-transition frames)
Regarding claim 4, Gray further discloses the High and Low intervals are set at one of the rising edges of the exposure times in the one unit frame and are constant in a same measurement. (Gray, Fig. 2, 133 ms for each of the measurement frames)
Regarding claim 10, Gray discloses a trigger signal generator, comprising: circuitry configured to generate a trigger-out signal for synchronizing an external circuit with a radiation detector for counting pulses generated when radiation particles are detected by exposure, for each frame, and define one unit frame as one frame or a group of a predetermined number of consecutive frames, and generate the trigger-out signal, providing a High interval and a Low interval for each one unit frame, the one unit frame being one or a series of predetermined number of frames for which a High or a Low interval is set. (see above with respect to claim 1)
Regarding claim 11, Gray discloses a radiation analyzing system for acquiring a radiation intensity distribution for each frame, comprising: a radiation detector including a sensor configured to generate pulses in response to detection of radiation particles by exposure, a counter configured to count the pulse for each frame, a readout circuit configured to read out a count value generated by the counter, a control circuit configured to control the exposure and the readout by a signal, and a trigger signal generating circuit configured to generate a trigger-out signal, providing a High interval and a Low interval for each one unit frame for which a High or a Low interval is set; and a synchronization circuit operating in synchronization with the trigger-out signal generated by the radiation detector. (See above with respect to claim 1)
Regarding claim Gray discloses the trigger signal generator according to claim 10 (see above with respect to claims 10, 1);a radiation detector connected to the trigger signal generator; and a synchronizing circuit configured to operate for operating in synchronization with the trigger-out signal generated by the trigger signal generator. (Gray, Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 13, Gray further discloses a start or end point of the High and Low intervals is set at one of a rising edge and a falling edge of a readout time of the one unit frame. (Gray, Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 14, Gray further discloses a start or end point of the High and Low intervals is set at one of a rising edge and a falling edge of an exposure time of the one unit frame. (Gray, Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 15, Gray further discloses each of the High and Low intervals comprises a readout time of the one unit frame. (Gray, Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 16, Gray further discloses the High and Low intervals are set at one of the rising edges of the exposure times in the one unit frame and are constant in a the same measurement. (Gray, Fig. 2, 133 ms for most measurement frames)
19. (Currently Amended) The radiation analyzing system according to The radiation analyzing system according to wherein the one unit frame is a frame, andwherein the trigger signal generating circuit generates ais configured to generatethe trigger-out signal in which such that the High and Low intervals are defined for each of with respect to rising edges of the exposure times in each frame.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Gray lacks explicit teaching of the exposure time of one frame is 1000 microseconds or less. (Gray shows timings of 33 ms and 133 ms)
Higher framerates (resulting in lower exposure times) are generally considered positive in video applications where change occurs quickly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the frame rate (and therefore exposure time) of the imaging in order to capture images of things that move quickly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Gray further teaches the high and low intervals are set at a rising edge and a falling edge of an exposure time of the one unit frame and are constant for each measurement. (Gray, Fig. 2)
Gray lacks explicit teaching of the High and Low intervals do not include readout times of the one unit frame.
However, the inclusion (or exclusion) of readout times from the unit frame time is a matter of routine choice of which one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably be capable, and the arbitrary selection of this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention
Claim(s) 6-7, 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Sakuma et al., (EP 3 706 408)(also published as JP 2020 143933A)(cited by Applicant)
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Gray lacks explicit teaching of there are a plurality of the counters is provided, and the control circuit is configured to switch, at a timing of generating the trigger-out signal, between a first counter counting the pulses and a second counter reading out the count value thereby enabling continuous exposure.
Sakuma teaches there are a plurality of the counters is provided, and the control circuit is configured to switch, at a timing of generating the trigger-out signal, between a first counter counting the pulses and a second counter reading out the count value thereby enabling continuous exposure. (Sakuma, abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include additional counters to enable compensation for dead time in the counting circuit.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gray and Sakuma further teaches the one unit frame is a frame, and wherein the trigger signal generating circuit generates a is configured to generate the trigger-out signal in which such that the High and Low intervals are defined for each of with respect to rising edges of the exposure times in each frame. (Gray, Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Gray and Sakuma lacks explicit teaching of a mode switching circuit configured to switch the setting of the exposure and readout timings among predetermined modes, wherein the control circuit is configured to control the exposure and the readout according to the predetermined mode by a signal, and the trigger signal generating circuit is configured to generate the trigger-out signal such that the High and Low intervals are defined in response to the predetermined mode.
However, the ability for a user to input parameters to the system constitutes making adjustable a variable that was fixed, in this case the high and low interval signal. Accordingly, the provision of a switch or switching circuit to allow a user to adjust the operation of the machine is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(D).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EDWIN C GUNBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-3107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights