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 23 June 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (page 7, first line through page 13, last line), filed 23 June 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant arguments regarding the interpretation of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) are persuasive in part.
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, Applicant argues the limitation “measurement device” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues paragraph 118 of the specification, as presently amended, provides sufficient structure to describe the measurement device. However, whether 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is invoked depends on the claim language, not the specification. As described previously, there is insufficient structure recited in the claim, and therefore 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is invoked.
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, Examiner acknowledges 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is no longer invoked due to amendment.
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, Applicant argues “collection means” is interpreted too narrowly, and that per paragraph 10 of the specification, the collection means does not need to collect photons or charged particles being of the same type generated by the generator. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 10 recites “The generator … is configured to generate photons or charged particles … The collector is configured to collect the generated photons or charged particles”. There is no description in paragraph 10 of collecting any photons or charged particles other than those generated by the generator. Further, collection of the generated photons or charged particles by the collector would be necessary for the invention to function. Accordingly, the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is maintained.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant arguments regarding the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are persuasive in part.
Claims 5-10
Applicant’s arguments regarding the term “substantially” are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, while amended paragraph 118 does describe a measurement device, it does not explain what the measurement device actually is. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is maintained. Examiner notes paragraph 118, as originally filed, recites “the detector stack may be configured to perform time of flight (TOF) measurements”. Such a recitation in the claim, rather than an unspecified measurement device, would be definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
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 and 16
Claims 11 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 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(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.
Claim 11
Claim 11 is 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.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 12-16
Claims 1-10 and 12-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 1 and 15-16
Regarding claims 1 and 15-16, with reference to representative claim 1, the cited prior art does not expressly disclose or suggest the claimed invention, particularly 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, wherein the filter is further configured such that one or more transmission and/or reflection properties of the filter vary along the filtering direction, and wherein the filter is arranged between the generator and the collector in the first direction, in combination with the other elements of the claim.
The cited prior art discloses some elements of the claim. Ramsden (US 2024/0183999 A1) 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 a component of the collector (¶¶ 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 and the filter is arranged between the generator and the collector in the first direction.
King (US 2005/0017185 A1) 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).
While various means for detecting photons or charged particles were generally known in the art, as were stacked detectors, generators, collectors, and filters, the cited prior art does not expressly disclose or suggest Applicant’s particularly claimed configuration. Accordingly, claims 1 and 15-16 are allowed.
Claims 2-10 and 12-14
Regarding claims 2-10 and 12-14, the claims are allowed due to their dependence.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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).
Yang (US 2018/0084632 A1) discloses performing time of flight measurements (¶ 22).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights