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 current Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on February 20, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9, filed February 20, 2026, with respect to abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of abstract has been withdrawn. Applicant has corrected the abstract
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9-10, filed February 20, 2026, with respect to Claims 2-5, 7-9, and 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the claims has been withdrawn. Applicant has corrected the minor informalities found in the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9-10, filed February 20, 2026, with respect to claim 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of the claimhas been withdrawn. Applicant has amended the claim to remove the term “computer program”.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9-10, filed February 20, 2026, with respect to claims 1, 6, and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the subject matter that was indicated as allowable in the previous Office.
Applicant's arguments filed February 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 112(b) rejection, Applicant argues that the indefinite claim language has been corrected. However, the amended claim still contains indefinite claim language. As currently written, the claim fails to define how a scanning system implement the method of claim 1. The claim fails to provide sufficient structure.
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.
Claims 13-14 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.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “A scanning system configured to implement the method according to claim 1 for diagnosing a problem within a chemical processing vessel and/or a problem with a process occurring within the chemical processing vessel” renders the claim indefinite because the claim fails to define the structure that able to implement the method of claim 1. Claim 1 defines the scanning being conducted using at least one radiation source and at least one radiation detector and fails to define the scanning being performed by a scanning system. As currently written, the scanning system implements the method of claim 1 without reciting sufficient structure. The claim fails to particularly point out how the scanning system implements the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “a computer program configured to cause a processor to perform the method according to claim 1” renders the claim indefinite because the claim fails to define how the computer program implements the scanning of a chemical processing vessel of claim 1. As currently written, claim 1 defines the scanning being conducted using at least one radiation source and at least one radiation detector. Claim 1 defines the scanning being conducted using at least one radiation source and at least one radiation detector. Claim 1 fails to define the scanning being performed by a scanning system. Claim 14 fails to define how the scanning is performed using a program. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation to include using a processor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, and 3-12 are allowable.
Claim 13-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is Alami ("Developments on software tools for data acquisition and numerical simulation for gamma-ray scanning”).
Regarding claim 1:
Alami discloses a method of scanning a chemical processing vessel and diagnosing a problem within the chemical processing vessel and/or a problem with a process occurring within the chemical processing vessel, the method comprising:
scanning the chemical processing vessel with at least one radiation source and at least one detector to generate density profile data for the chemical processing vessel (Figure 1, source and detector scanning vessel);
saving the density profile data (Pg. 5, right col., lines 3-5, data is stored);
generating a representation of the chemical processing vessel (Figure 7);
associating the density profile data with the representation of the chemical processing vessel whereby each data point of the density profile data is associated with a corresponding location along the representation of the chemical processing vessel indicating the location from which the data point was obtained (Fig. 7, profile displayed with height vs column);
displaying the representation of the chemical processing vessel alongside the associated density profile data on a user interface (Fig. 7, profile display on a user interface),
using the user interface, enabling a user to select a portion of the representation of the chemical processing vessel on the user interface and automatically displaying a corresponding portion of the density profile data in expanded form (Pg. 5, left col., “read data” icon allows display specific windows), whereby said portion of the density profile data can be analysed by the user in greater detail (Pg. 5, left col., “read data” icon allows display specific windows).
However, Alami fails to disclose associating the saved density profile data with a date on which the density profile data was captured, wherein the user interface is configured to enable a user to simultaneously display density profile data captured on two or more different dates to identify changes in the density profile data associated with a representation of chemical processing vessel.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record. Claims 3-6, and 8-14 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 7:
Alami discloses a method of scanning a chemical processing vessel and diagnosing a problem within the chemical processing vessel and/or a problem with a process occurring within the chemical processing vessel, the method comprising:
scanning the chemical processing vessel with at least one radiation source and at least one detector to generate density profile data for the chemical processing vessel (Figure 1, source and detector scanning vessel);
saving the density profile data (Pg. 5, right col., lines 3-5, data is stored);
generating a representation of the chemical processing vessel (Figure 7);
associating the density profile data with the representation of the chemical processing vessel whereby each data point of the density profile data is associated with a corresponding location along the representation of the chemical processing vessel indicating the location from which the data point was obtained (Fig. 7, profile displayed with height vs column);
displaying the representation of the chemical processing vessel alongside the associated density profile data on a user interface (Fig. 7, profile display on a user interface),
using the user interface, enabling a user to select a portion of the representation of the chemical processing vessel on the user interface and automatically displaying a corresponding portion of the density profile data in expanded form (Pg. 5, left col., “read data” icon allows display specific windows), whereby said portion of the density profile data can be analysed by the user in greater detail (Pg. 5, left col., “read data” icon allows display specific windows),
wherein the representation of the chemical processing vessel displayed on the user interface is a longitudinal representation of the chemical process vessel Fig. 7, profile display on a user interface).
However, Alami fails to disclose enabling a user to select a portion of the longitudinal representation of the chemical processing vessel and displaying a cross-sectional representation of the selected portion along with density profile data for said cross-sectional representation.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record. Claim 8 is allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
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 SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 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, David Makiya can be reached at 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 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights