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 .
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 11-12 and 16
Claims 11-12 and 16 interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “measurement device” uses the generic placeholder “device” 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 any means capable of performing the claimed function because no corresponding structure is described in Applicant’s specification. Regarding the interpretations of claims using generic placeholders, see MPEP § 2181(I)(A).
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “structural elements” uses the generic placeholder “elements” and is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to detectors (Applicant’s specification, ¶ 90) and equivalents thereof.
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “generation means” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to a photon or charged particle generator (Applicant’s specification, ¶ 10) and equivalents thereof.
Limitation “collection means” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to a photon or charged particle collector being of the same type as the generator (Applicant’s specification, ¶ 10) and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 5-11
Claims 5-11 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.
Claims 5, 7-8, and 10
Regarding claims 5, 7-8, and 10, for each claim:
The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Claims 6-10
Regarding claims 6-10, the claims are rejected due to their dependence on one or more indefinite claims.
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, one or more claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, as described above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR § 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 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 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 1-10 and 12-16
Claims 1-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsden (US 2024/0183999 A1) in view of King (US 2005/0017185 A1).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Ramsden discloses a detector stack (10), comprising: a first detector and a second detector arranged along a first direction, each of the first detector and second detector comprising: a generator (scintillator of the scintillating fibers 110, 120) configured to generate photons or charged particles (x-rays, gamma rays, protons, ions) when interacting with incident particles, the photons or charged particles being indicative of energies of the respective incident particles, and a collector (the fibers themselves and the photodetectors associated with each of them, see ¶ 49) configured to collect the generated photons or charged particles and output an output signal representing information of a one-dimensional travelling direction of the incident particles, wherein the collector of the first detector and the collector of the second detector are configured to respectively output output signals representing different one-dimensional travel directions of the incident particles (see fig. 2: the scintillation fibers 110 being arranged along the x direction, the scintillation fibers 120 being arranged along the y-direction), the first detector comprising a filter configured to filter the generated photons or charged particles along a filtering direction that is oriented perpendicular to an axis along which the filter extends in thickness, and wherein the filter is arranged between the generator and the collector in the first direction (¶¶ 37, 42-57; Figs. 2-3).
Ramsden does not expressly disclose the filter is further configured such that one or more transmission and/or reflection properties of the filter vary along the filtering direction.
King discloses a filter (14) configured to filter particles (neutrons, or other kinds of radiation by using alternative materials) along a filtering direction (y axis) that is oriented perpendicular to an axis (z axis) along which the filter (14) extends in thickness (¶¶ 33-45; Figs. 1-4C)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have modified the invention of Ramsden, in view of the teachings of King, so that the filter is further configured such that one or more transmission and/or reflection properties of the filter vary along the filtering direction.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in King of providing a “sensitivity profile” with improved energy discrimination due to the variation in thickness (King, ¶¶ 42-45).
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Ramsden modified teaches the detector stack of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first detector and second detector further comprises an absorber (16), wherein the absorber, the generator, and the collector are arranged in this order in the first direction (King, ¶ 37, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have further modified the invention of Ramsden, in view of the further teachings of King.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in King of reducing the influence of radiation other than that which is being detected (King, ¶ 37).
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Ramsden modified teaches the detector stack of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first detector and second detector further comprises an absorber (see rejection of claim 2 above). Ramsden modified further teaches the generator and the collector are the same device (a scintillating fiber; see rejection of claim 1 above). Ramsden modified further teaches the device (10, 12, 14) is embedded in the absorber (16; see rejection of claim 2 above and the cited portions of King, with the embedding shown in Fig. 1 for the purpose of filtering as described in ¶ 37).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Ramsden modified teaches the detector stack of claim 1, wherein the collector of the first detector includes an array of waveguides (Ramsden, scintillating fibers, as shown in Fig. 2; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Ramsden modified teaches the detector stack of claim 4, wherein the waveguides of the array are disposed substantially in parallel to define a collection direction (Ramsden, Fig. 2; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Ramsden modified teaches the detector stack of claim 5, wherein the waveguides of the array are disposed along the second direction (Ramsden, Fig. 2; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Ramsden modified teaches the detector stack of claim 5, wherein the collector of the second detector includes an array of waveguides disposed substantially in parallel to define a collection direction, wherein the collection direction of the first detector and the collection direction of the second detector are tilted one with respect to another of a first tilting angle (angle of 90 degrees as shown in Ramsden, Fig. 2; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Ramsden modified teaches the detector stack of claim 7, wherein the first tilting angle is substantially a right angle (angle of 90 degrees as shown in Ramsden, Fig. 2; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Ramsden modified teaches the detector stack of claim 5, wherein the filtering direction of the filter of the first detector is rotated of a second tilting angle with respect to the collection direction of the first detector (angle of 90 degrees as shown in Ramsden, Fig. 2, modified to include variable filtering as described in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Ramsden modified teaches the detector stack of claim 9, wherein the second tilting angle is substantially a right angle (angle of 90 degrees as shown in Ramsden, Fig. 2, modified to include variable filtering as described in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, Ramsden modified teaches the detector stack of claim 1, wherein a volume between the first detector and the second detector is free from structural elements (i.e., there are no intervening detectors between the first and second adjacent detectors in the stack identified in the rejection of claim 1).
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, Ramsden modified teaches the detector stack of claim 1, wherein the collector of the first detector and the collector of the second detector are configured to respectively output output signals representing different one-dimensional travel directions of the incident particles in a plane defined by a second direction and a third direction, the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction being different directions (see directions as described in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, Ramsden modified teaches the detector stack of claim 13, wherein the generator is a generation layer (scintillating coating) and the collector is a collection layer (fiber casing), wherein the generation layer and the collection layer are layers extending along the second direction and the third direction (see directions as described in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claims 15-16
Regarding claims 15-16, see the rejection of claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 11
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsden view of King as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (US 2018/0084632 A1).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Ramsden modified teaches the detector stack of claim 1, further comprising a measurement device (controller / computer) configured to measure the output signals (Ramsden, ¶ 64).
Ramsden modified does not expressly disclose the measurement device is configured to perform time of flight measurements.
Yang discloses performing time of flight measurements (¶ 22).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have further modified the invention of Ramsden, in view of the teachings of Yang, so that the measurement device is configured to perform time of flight measurements.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Yang of improving detection sensitivity (Yang, ¶ 22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Allinson (WO 2015/189601A1; a copy is included with the information disclosure statement filed 16 April 2024) (see page 41, lines 6-37 and page 44, line 10 through page 45, line 38; figures 4 and 9) discloses a detector stack (210A, 210B, 220A or 220B) comprising a first detector and a second detector arranged along a first direction, each of the first detector and second detector comprising: generation means (210A1, 210A2, 210A3) configured to generate photons or charged particles when interacting with incident particles, the photons or charged particles being indicative of energies of the respective incident particles, collection means (210A1R, 210A2R, 210A3R) configured to collect the generated photons or charged particles and output an output signal representing information of a one-dimensional travelling direction of the incident particles, wherein the collection means of the first detector and the collection means of the second detector are configured to respectively output output signals representing different one-dimensional travel directions of the incident particles (see figure 9: the strip elements are arranged according to 3 separate directions).
Therriault-Proulx (US 2014/0263991 A1) discloses a radiation dosimeter for measuring radiation dose at multiple points within a detection region, wherein the radiation dosimeter includes a radiation detector comprising a plurality of scintillating elements located within the detection region and configured to generate optical energy in response to irradiation in the detection region, a single collecting light guide optically coupled to the radiation detector and configured to receive and transmit the optical energy generated by the plurality of scintillating elements, a spectral filter stage optically coupled to the single collecting light guide and configured to receive and spectrally decouple the transmitted optical energy, a photo-detector stage optically coupled to the spectral filter stage and configured to generate electrical signals indicative of optical energy within at least one region of the spectrally decoupled optical energy, and a computing device connected to the photo-detector stage and configured to receive and process the electrical signals to compute the measured radiation dose (¶ 5).
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 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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-2995. 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.
Blake C. Riddick, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884