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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the coax cable, the inner shielding layer of the coax cable, and clear delineation between all elements 1-8 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Further, the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the coax cable and the inner shielding layer of the coax cable must be clearly shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Clear boundaries and delineation between each element in the drawings needs to be included, as it is currently unclear where each element starts and ends (especially elements 4-8). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1 is 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 1 recites “the ionization chamber stem is directly connected to an inner wall of the high-voltage electrode" and “is flush with a tangent plane of a spherical surface formed by the inner wall of the high-voltage electrode at an intersection of a straight line where the ionization chamber stem is located and the spherical surface.”
The phrases “directly connected” and “flush with” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether these terms require exclusive, uninterrupted physical contact between the stem and inner wall, or whether intermediate structures may exist between the two while still satisfying the claimed relationship.
The drawings (Fig. 2) depict an embodiment in which multiple components are positioned between the stem and inner wall (elements 4, 5, and 6). Further, it is not clear if these components are included within the scope of either the stem or inner wall. For the purposes of examination, Examiner interprets the phrases as requiring uninterrupted physical contact.
Claim 1 also recites “the first TNC interface is connected to one end of a guarding electrode through an inner shielding layer of a coax cable double shielded.”
The phrase “through an inner shielding layer of coax cable…” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear, in view of the specification and drawings, how the coax cable, TNC interface, and guarding electrode are structurally distinguished. The drawings fail to clearly depict or label the coax cable or its inner shielding layer and do not adequately delineate the boundaries between guarding electrode, coax cable, and TNC interface.
Claim 1 also recites “another end of the guarding electrode penetrates into the ionization chamber sensitive volume to isolate the high-voltage electrode from the collecting electrode.”
The phrase “another end of the guarding electrode penetrates into the ionization chamber sensitive volume” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear how the guarding electrode and collecting electrode are structurally distinguished. The drawings fail to clearly delineate the boundaries between the guarding electrode and collecting electrode.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li '324 (CN 207601324 U) in view of Li '728 (CN 205643728 U), in further view of Di (CN 206696439 U).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood: Li ‘324 discloses a cavity ionization chamber (Fig. 2) for measuring dose rate at protection-level, comprising an ionization chamber sensitive volume (11), an ionization chamber stem (31), and a first interface (37), wherein
the ionization chamber sensitive volume comprises a high-voltage electrode (1), and a collecting electrode (2);
the ionization chamber stem (31) is connected to the ionization chamber sensitive volume and the first interface (Fig. 2, Fig. 11); and
the ionization chamber stem is directly connected to an inner wall of the high-voltage electrode through a socket connector (Fig. 11, 110).
Li ‘324 does not teach wherein
the first interface is a Thread Neill-Concelman (TNC) interface;
the ionization stem is flush with a tangent plane of a spherical surface formed by the inner wall of the high-voltage electrode at an intersection of a straight line where the ionization chamber stem is located and the spherical surface; and
the first interface is connected to one end of a guarding electrode through an inner shielding layer of a coax cable double shielded, and another end of the guarding electrode penetrates into the ionization chamber sensitive volume to isolate the high-voltage electrode from the collecting electrode.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the chamber stem to be flush with a tangent plane of a spherical surface, since such a modification would have involved a mere rearrangement of parts. One would have been motivated to make such a change on the basis of preserving spherical symmetry.
Li ‘728 teaches an ionization chamber with a guarding electrode (Fig. 1, 3) penetrating into the ionization chamber sensitive volume (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified D1 to incorporate the teachings of D2 and provide a guarding electrode that penetrates into the ionization chamber volume. One would be motivated to do so on the basis of eliminating leakage current effects and reducing field distortions.
Li ‘324 is silent with respect to the type of connector used, allowing for that which is known in the art. Di teaches an ionization chamber provided with a TNC coaxial connector [0039]. It would have been an obvious design choice to someone of ordinary skill in the art, based on routine engineering considerations, to have used a TNC interface to connect the chamber stem to the ionization sensitive volume. One would be motivated to do so on the basis of selecting a known, standard RF coaxial connector that provides vibration resistance and secure coupling.
Regarding Claim 2: Li ‘324 in view of Li ‘728, in further view of Di, discloses the cavity ionization chamber according to claim 1, wherein the high-voltage electrode is composed of an upper hemisphere and a lower hemisphere, and the upper hemisphere and the lower hemisphere are in contact with each other (Li ‘324: Fig. 4).
Li ‘324, Li ‘728, and Di all fail to teach the upper hemisphere and lower hemisphere are connected through a R-shaped structure. However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the bonded connection of Li ‘324 by instead using an R-shaped connecting structure, as both approaches represent known techniques for securing two components together. Substituting an adhesive or bonded joint for a mechanical interlocking structure would have merely involved routine skill in the art. One would be motivated to make such a substitution to predictably secure the two halves while enabling disassembly. (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 3: Li ‘324 in view of Li ‘728, in further view of Di, discloses the cavity ionization chamber according to claim 1, wherein the inner wall of the high-voltage electrode is provided with a colloidal graphite conductive layer (Li ‘324: [0060]: “Meanwhile, both the ionization chamber body 11 and the connecting part 12 are made of graphite material, preferably high-purity graphite material.”).
Regarding Claim 4: Li ‘324 in view of Li ‘728, in further view of Di, discloses the cavity ionization chamber according to claim 1, but all fail to teach wherein an outer wall of the high-voltage electrode is made of polyoxymethylene as air equivalent material.
Di teaches wherein an outer wall is made of PMMA [0021].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Li ‘324, Li ‘728, and Di and substitute the PMMA of Di for polyoxymethylene. This substitution merely involves routinely selecting one known suitable polymer for another to obtain predictable results. One would have been motivated to make such a modification on the basis of improving mechanical strength.
Regarding Claim 5: Li ‘324 in view of Li ‘728, in further view of Di, discloses the cavity ionization chamber according to claim 1, wherein one end of the socket connector is connected to the high-voltage electrode, and another end of the socket connector is connected to the ionization chamber stem (Li ‘324: Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 6: Li ‘324 in view of Li ‘728, in further view of Di, discloses the cavity ionization chamber according to claim 1, wherein the collecting electrode is hollow-core and made of polymethyl methacrylate, and a surface of the collecting electrode is provided with a colloidal graphite conductive layer (Li ‘324: [0060]: “Meanwhile, both the ionization chamber body 11 and the connecting part 12 are made of graphite material, preferably high-purity graphite material.”).
Regarding Claim 7: Li ‘324 in view of Li ‘728, in further view of Di, discloses the cavity ionization chamber according to claim 1, wherein the ionization chamber stem is made of gold-plated brass (Li ‘324: [0038]).
All fail to teach wherein the ionization chamber stem is made of dural.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted a stem made of dural for the gold-plated brass stem of Li ‘324 because both are known conductive structural materials. One would be motivated to make such a substitution on the basis of providing a lighter weight material as a matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 8: Li ‘324 in view of Li ‘728, in further view of Di, discloses the cavity ionization chamber according to claim 1, wherein one end of the ionization chamber stem is connected to a second TCN interface (Di: [0039]) through a coax cable double shielded, and another end of the ionization chamber stem is connected to the high-voltage electrode, the collecting electrode and the guarding electrode through the socket connector (Li ‘324: [0063] and [0082]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ‘324, Li ‘728, and Di, in futher view of Chang (CN 110416058 A) and DeWerd (US 8044365 B2).
Regarding Claim 9: Li ‘324 in view of Li ‘728, in further view of Di, discloses the cavity ionization chamber according to claim 1, but all fail to teach wherein the collecting electrode is provided with polyoxymethylene supporting stems at both sides thereof, and surfaces of the supporting sterns are provided with aluminum foil conductive layers, and the supporting stems are separated from the high-voltage electrode by insulating materials.
Chang teaches an ionization chamber wherein the collecting electrode (Fig. 1, 9) is provided with polyimide supporting stems at both sides thereof (Fig. 1, 8), and the supporting stems are separated from the high-voltage electrode (1) by insulating materials (7).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Li ‘324, Li ‘728, and Di to include the supporting stems of Chang, separated from the high voltage electrode by insulating materials. One would have been motivated to make such a modification on the basis of providing structural support and preventing electrical leakage. Further, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have substitute the polyimide of Chang for polyoxymethylene. This substitution merely involves routinely selecting one known suitable polymer for another to obtain predictable results. One would have been motivated to make such a modification on the basis of improving mechanical strength.
Li ‘324, Li ‘728, Di, and Chang fail to teach surfaces of the supporting sterns are provided with aluminum foil conductive layers.
However, coating insulating material with conductive layers is known in the art as shown by DeWerd, Col. 2, lines 14-16: “The outer chamber wall of the first and/or second chamber may be a conductive polymer material or a non-conductive material having an internally applied conductive coating.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a conductive foil coating on the polymer supporting stems of Chang. One would have been motivated to make such a modification on the basis of improving measurement stability and controlling electric fields.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA DOWNING whose telephone number is (703)756-1840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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.
/MIYA DOWNING/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights