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). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the reflective layer, which covers four sides of the substantially cuboid shape of the scintillator, except for a first side of the scintillator abutting the meta-lens module, and a second side opposite the first side as claimed in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: a nuclear radiation detection apparatus 50.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 64.
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: META-OPTIC DEVICE COMPRISING AN IMAGE SENSOR, A META-LENS MODULE, A SCINTILLATOR, AND A REFLECTIVE L AYER FOR NUCLEAR RADIATION DETECTION, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 7, line 19, --20-- should be inserted after “the image sensor”.
Page 10, line 7, “calculating” before “device 52” should be replaced by --computing--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Please note that paragraph numbers in a U. S. Patent Application Publication do not correspond to page numbers and line numbers in the originally-filed specification. The page numbers and line numbers mentioned above refer to the originally-filed specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
1. (Proposed Amendments) A meta-optic device for detecting nuclear radiation, comprising:
a) an image sensor;
b) a scintillator adapted to absorb nuclear radiation thereby generating visible light photons;
c) a meta-lens module disposed between the image sensor and the scintillator; and
d) a reflective structure for restricting a direction of motion of the visible light photons generated by the scintillator;
wherein the meta-lens module is adapted to converge the visible light photons generated by the scintillator, and transmit [[them]] the visible light photons to the image sensor such that an energy density of the visible light photons reaches a detection threshold of the image sensor.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
2. (Proposed Amendments) The meta-optic device according to claim 1, wherein the image sensor is substantially planar in structure, one side of the meta-lens module being adjacent to the image sensor and another side of the meta-lens module being adjacent to the scintillator, and the scintillator having a substantially cuboid shape.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
3. (Proposed Amendments) The meta-optic device according to claim 2, wherein the meta-lens module is a meta-lens array comprising a plurality of metal-lenses, and the plurality of meta-lenses being arranged substantially in a same plane.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
4. (Proposed Amendments) The meta-optic device according to claim 3, wherein each of the plurality of meta-lenses in the meta-lens array .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
5. (Proposed Amendments) The meta-optic device according to claim 4, wherein each of the plurality of meta-lenses in the metal-lens array .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
6. (Proposed Amendments) The meta-optic device according to claim 4, wherein each of the plurality of meta-lenses in the metal-lens array polygon, and at least two of the plurality of meta- lenses resting against each other by their side edges.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
8. (Proposed Amendments) The meta-optic device according to claim 2, wherein the reflective structure [[is]] includes a reflective [[layer]] substantially cuboid shape (a previously recited limitation in claim 2) of the scintillator, except for a first side of the scintillator abutting the meta-lens module, and a second side opposite the first side.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
7. (Proposed Amendments) The meta-optic device according to claim 1, wherein the image sensor [[is]] includes a CMOS image sensor.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
9. (Proposed Amendments) A method for fabricating a meta-optic device for detecting nuclear radiation according to claim 1, comprising steps of:
a) providing an image sensor;
b) forming a meta-lens module on the image sensor;
c) forming a scintillator on the meta-lens module, the scintillator adapted to absorb nuclear radiation thereby producing visible light photons; and
d) forming a reflective structure on the scintillator for restricting the direction of motion of the visible light photons
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
10. (Proposed Amendments) A portable nuclear radiation detection apparatus, comprising:
a) a meta-optic device according to claim 1; and
b) a display device coupled to the meta-optic device,
wherein the display device is adapted to display nuclear radiation detection results in an image.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 a corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 a 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use 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. Such claim limitations are: a metal-lens module and a display device in claims 1-10.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover a corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,237,280 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Gu et al. disclosed a meta-optic device for detecting nuclear radiation, comprising:
a) an image sensor (102);
b) a scintillator (105) adapted to absorb nuclear radiation thereby generating visible light photons (column 6, lines 8-17);
c) a meta-lens module (104) disposed between the image sensor and the scintillator (column 5, line 62 - column 6, line 7); and
d) a reflective structure (107) for restricting a direction of motion of the visible light photons generated by the scintillator (column 6, line 31 - column 8, line 18);
wherein the meta-lens module is adapted to converge the visible light photons generated by the scintillator, and transmit the visible light photons to the image sensor such that an energy density of the visible light photons reaches a detection threshold of the image sensor.
With respect to claim 2, Gu et al. disclosed the meta-optic device according to claim 1, wherein the image sensor is substantially planar in structure, one side of the meta-lens module being adjacent to the image sensor and another side of the meta-lens module being adjacent to the scintillator, and the scintillator having a substantially cuboid shape (FIG. 2).
With respect to claim 3, Gu et al. disclosed the meta-optic device according to claim 2, wherein the meta-lens module is a meta-lens array comprising a plurality of metal-lenses, and the plurality of meta-lenses being arranged substantially in a same plane (FIG. 2).
With respect to claim 7, Gu et al. disclosed the meta-optic device according to claim 1, wherein the image sensor includes a CMOS image sensor (column 4, line 65 - column 5, line 12).
With respect to claim 9, Gu et al. disclosed A method for fabricating a meta-optic device for detecting nuclear radiation according to claim 1, comprising steps of:
a) providing an image sensor (102);
b) forming a meta-lens module (104) on the image sensor (column 5, line 62 - column 6, line 7);
c) forming a scintillator (105) on the meta-lens module, the scintillator adapted to absorb nuclear radiation thereby producing visible light photons (column 6, lines 8-17); and
d) forming a reflective structure (107) on the scintillator for restricting the direction of motion of the visible light photons (column 6, line 31 - column 8, line 18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,237,280 B2) as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 10, Gu et al. disclosed a portable nuclear radiation detection apparatus, comprising:
a) a meta-optic device according to claim 1.
However, Gu et al. did not disclose that the portable nuclear radiation detection apparatus, further comprising:
b) a display device coupled to the meta-optic device,
wherein the display device is adapted to display nuclear radiation detection results in an image.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a display device coupled to the meta-optic device, since a physician or a radiologist would be motivated diagnose a patient based on an image acquired by the meta-optic device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iwanaka et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,385,861 B2) disclosed a radiation detection device comprising a radiation detector.
Sari et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,339,407 B2) disclosed a device for detecting charged particles or radiation.
Gu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,237,280 B2) disclosed a radiation image detector.
Igarashi et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,929,199 B2) disclosed an imaging and display system comprising a radiation detector and an imaging unit.
Ganguly et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,606,244 B2) disclosed an X-ray imager comprising a lens array and a non-structured transparent scintillator.
Kawata et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,040,927 B2) disclosed a radiation detection apparatus.
Barrett et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,519,338 B2) disclosed an X-ray detector including a scintillator, a lens array, and an image intensifier.
Barrett et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,928,397 B2) disclosed a gamma camera including a scintillator and an image intensifier.
Nelson et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,291,841 B2) disclosed a system comprising a device for enhanced PET, SPECT, and Compton-scattering imaging in nuclear medicine.
Nelson et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,147,372 B2) disclosed a system comprising a device for improved imaging in nuclear medicine and mammography.
Nelson et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,584,420 B1) disclosed a system comprising a device for improved imaging in nuclear medicine and mammography.
Kaifu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,528,796 B1) disclosed a radiation image-pickup system comprising a radiation image-pickup device.
Karellas (U. S. Patent No. 5,864,146 A) disclosed a system for quantitative radiographic imaging.
Trissel et al. (U. S. Patent No. 5,723,865 A) disclosed an X-ray imaging device.
Karellas (U. S. Patent No. 5,150,394 A) disclosed a dual-energy system for quantitative radiographic imaging.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allen C. Ho, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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 J. 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.
Allen C. Ho, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Allen C. Ho/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Allen.Ho@uspto.gov