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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”. Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… individualized calculation determines peaks over a range of temperatures for each individual apparatus, which includes the scintillation crystal and electronics package, shortly after manufacturing is complete. As the apparatus is used, the calculations are then used as an active feedback to compensate for voltage bias and stabilize gain, eliminating drift. As such, each apparatus will have an individualized reference to compensate for crystal light output changes over a given range of temperatures to regulate gain stabilization thus ensuring linearity and symmetry to the centroids measured over a full energy peak ranging from 0 keV to 1400 keV …” in paragraphs 24 and 25) serves as a glossary for the claim term “a constant centroid shift at zero”.
The specification (e.g., see “… method determines the breakdown voltage of a light source or crystal that is optically coupled to the semiconductor-based photosensor over a range of measured temperatures. At block 302, an input pulse is injected into the semiconductor-based photomultiplier 152 at room temperature … every fraction of a second, the magnitude of the pulse can be increased in steps (added to the bias voltage) until the input voltage to the semiconductor-based photomultiplier 152 is pushed above the breakdown threshold at the current operating temperature …” in paragraph 39) serves as a glossary for the claim terms “determining a breakdown voltage of a light source” and “determining a breakdown voltage of a luminescent material”.
The specification (e.g., see “… an input pulse is injected into the semiconductor-based photomultiplier 152 at room temperature … every fraction of a second, the magnitude of the pulse can be increased in steps (added to the bias voltage) until the input voltage to the semiconductor-based photomultiplier 152 is pushed above the breakdown threshold at the current operating temperature …” in paragraph 39) serves as a glossary for the claim terms “a pulse injector circuit” and “a first input pulse into the semiconductor-based photomultiplier”.
The specification (e.g., see “… adjusting a bias voltage to a revised bias voltage, at block 312. The revised biased voltage can be a constant voltage output of between +/-1 % and +/-15% of a breakdown voltage for any given temperature within the temperature range …” in paragraph 44) serves as a glossary for the claim term “a constant voltage output”.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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(s) 2-5 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “temperature range” in the last line. The antecedent basis is unclear.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a temperature range” in the last line. The antecedent basis is unclear.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the energy output” in line 1+. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the constant voltage” in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the semiconductor-based photomultiplier” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the semiconductor-based photomultiplier” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the scintillator” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 10, 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: (a) a constant voltage output to other recited elements; (b) semiconductor-based photomultiplier and silicon photomultiplier; and (c) luminescent material and scintillator.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also indefinite for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 5, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The limitation “any temperature range between -20°C and +55°C” recited in claim 5 does not appear to further limit or include the limitation “a temperature range of 75°C” recited in claim 1.
The limitation “the semiconductor-based photomultiplier” recited in claim 17 does not appear to further limit or include the limitation “a silicon photomultiplier” recited in claim 9.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also of improper dependent form for the same reasons. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Preston (US 2016/0266260).
In regard to claim 1, Preston discloses an apparatus comprising a semiconductor-based photomultiplier, the apparatus maintaining a constant centroid shift at zero over a temperature range of 75°C (e.g., “… silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) … gain stabilization, where device and/or fabrication parameters are selected or adjusted such that a specific gamma peak will present at a specific location within an energy spectrum. This form of stabilization generally refers to adjustments in bias voltage … With an SiPM, gain stabilization is absolutely necessary for reliable operation … signal processor coupled to the SiPM can retrieve a variety of signal characteristics … calibration procedure may consist of temperature cycling a detector assembly in the presence of an external radiation source (e.g., Cs-137 or another) that provides a gamma peak of interest at which point only events within that gamma peak are interrogated for their signal characteristics. At various temperature stages (e.g., between a range including -20° C. to 60° C.), these signal characteristics may be measured and statistically analyzed using variable screening to determine primary effects (e.g. perturbations due to temperature) …” in paragraphs 44, 102, 111, and 113).
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1 in so far as understood, Preston also discloses that the apparatus maintains a constant channel per energy output over said temperature range of 75° C (e.g., “… silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) … gain stabilization, where device and/or fabrication parameters are selected or adjusted such that a specific gamma peak will present at a specific location within an energy spectrum. This form of stabilization generally refers to adjustments in bias voltage … With an SiPM, gain stabilization is absolutely necessary for reliable operation … signal processor coupled to the SiPM can retrieve a variety of signal characteristics … calibration procedure may consist of temperature cycling a detector assembly in the presence of an external radiation source (e.g., Cs-137 or another) that provides a gamma peak of interest at which point only events within that gamma peak are interrogated for their signal characteristics. At various temperature stages (e.g., between a range including -20° C. to 60° C.), these signal characteristics may be measured and statistically analyzed using variable screening to determine primary effects (e.g. perturbations due to temperature) …” in paragraphs 44, 102, 111, and 113).
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 1 in so far as understood, Preston also discloses that the apparatus maintains a characteristic peak of interest (POI) as measured by channel analyzer over said temperature range of 75° C (e.g., “… silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) … gain stabilization, where device and/or fabrication parameters are selected or adjusted such that a specific gamma peak will present at a specific location within an energy spectrum. This form of stabilization generally refers to adjustments in bias voltage … With an SiPM, gain stabilization is absolutely necessary for reliable operation … signal processor coupled to the SiPM can retrieve a variety of signal characteristics … calibration procedure may consist of temperature cycling a detector assembly in the presence of an external radiation source (e.g., Cs-137 or another) that provides a gamma peak of interest at which point only events within that gamma peak are interrogated for their signal characteristics. At various temperature stages (e.g., between a range including -20° C. to 60° C.), these signal characteristics may be measured and statistically analyzed using variable screening to determine primary effects (e.g. perturbations due to temperature) …” in paragraphs 44, 102, 111, and 113).
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1, Preston also discloses that the apparatus further comprises a scintillation crystal (e.g., “… embodiments described herein are based on one or more SiPMs (e.g., SiPM chips, pixels, or assemblies) that are coupled to at least one scintillator … PCB for an SiPM typically includes/supports at least one SiPM chip … may also include a temperature probe, an LED for stabilization, … and a logic device (e.g., a microcontroller) for feedback control and stabilization … For NaI(Tl), the relationship between pulse width and temperature is known; thus, a statistical map of pulse width to temperature may be constructed, and modifications to VBias or FG necessary to stabilize the signal can be provided by the known relationship and/or algorithmic interpolation …” in paragraphs 46, 50, and 113).
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 6, Preston also discloses that the apparatus further comprises a memory containing an individualized look-up table of gain stabilization for the specific scintillation crystal provided (e.g., “… embodiments described herein are based on one or more SiPMs (e.g., SiPM chips, pixels, or assemblies) that are coupled to at least one scintillator … PCB for an SiPM typically includes/supports at least one SiPM chip … may also include a temperature probe, an LED for stabilization, … and a logic device (e.g., a microcontroller) for feedback control and stabilization … For NaI(Tl), the relationship between pulse width and temperature is known; thus, a statistical map of pulse width to temperature may be constructed, and modifications to VBias or FG necessary to stabilize the signal can be provided by the known relationship and/or algorithmic interpolation …” in paragraphs 46, 50, and 113).
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 of this title, 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) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Preston (US 2016/0266260).
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 1 in so far as understood, Preston also discloses that the apparatus maintains a bias voltage so as to less than +/−5% of a breakdown voltage (e.g., “… bias voltages used are typically on the order of 1500V (vs. 24V to 32V, or lower, for SiPM embodiments described herein) … VBR is the breakdown voltage (e.g., typically 24.5V) …” in paragraphs 48 and 75). Alternatively, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05) since the bias voltage claimed less than +/−5% of a breakdown voltage range overlap the “… 24V to 32V, or lower …” bias voltage range that is less than +/−5% of a “… 24.5V …” breakdown voltage disclosed by the cited prior art.
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 1 in so far as understood, Preston also discloses that said temperature range is between −20° C. and +55° C (e.g., “… -20° C. to 60° C …” in paragraph 113). Alternatively, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05) since the claimed −20°C to +55°C range lie inside the “… -20° C. to 60° C …” range disclosed by the cited prior art.
Claim(s) 7 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preston (US 2016/0266260) in view of McLaughlin, II (US 2020/0278387).
In regard to claim 7 which is dependent on claim 1, the apparatus of Preston lacks an explicit description of details of the “… adjustments in bias voltage …” such as a pulse injector circuit configured to inject a first input pulse into the semiconductor-based photomultiplier during initial operation of the apparatus. However, “… adjustments in bias voltage …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… pulse injection circuit 152 sends a pulse to the semiconductor-based photomultiplier 130. In an embodiment, the pulse is in the form of a voltage. Injecting the pulse can be performed on a predetermined schedule or in response to a predetermined event, such as a reboot or start-up following maintenance, a shutdown or power outage. In a particular embodiment, every fraction of a second, the magnitude of the pulse can be increased in steps (added to the bias voltage) until the input voltage to the semiconductor-based photomultiplier 130 is pushed above the breakdown threshold at the current operating temperature …” in paragraph 33 of McLaughlin, II). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional bias voltage adjustment (e.g., comprising details such as “pulse injection circuit 152”, in order to “(added to the bias voltage) until the input voltage to the semiconductor-based photomultiplier 130 is pushed above the breakdown threshold at the current operating temperature”) for the unspecified bias voltage adjustment of Preston and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional bias voltage adjustment (e.g., comprising details such as a pulse injector circuit configured to inject a first input pulse into the semiconductor-based photomultiplier during initial operation of the apparatus) as the unspecified bias voltage adjustment of Preston.
In regard to claim 9 and claim 17 (dependent on claim 9 in so far as understood), Preston discloses a method for stabilizing a radiation detection device, comprising:
(a) a light source optically coupled to a silicon photomultiplier, wherein the light source is a luminescent material optically coupled to the silicon photomultiplier (e.g., “… embodiments described herein are based on one or more SiPMs (e.g., SiPM chips, pixels, or assemblies) that are coupled to at least one scintillator …” in paragraph 46);
(b) measuring a plurality of light outputs of the light source provided over a temperature range of 75 degrees (e.g., “… silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) … gain stabilization, where device and/or fabrication parameters are selected or adjusted such that a specific gamma peak will present at a specific location within an energy spectrum. This form of stabilization generally refers to adjustments in bias voltage … With an SiPM, gain stabilization is absolutely necessary for reliable operation … signal processor coupled to the SiPM can retrieve a variety of signal characteristics … calibration procedure may consist of temperature cycling a detector assembly in the presence of an external radiation source (e.g., Cs-137 or another) that provides a gamma peak of interest at which point only events within that gamma peak are interrogated for their signal characteristics. At various temperature stages (e.g., between a range including -20° C. to 60° C.), these signal characteristics may be measured and statistically analyzed using variable screening to determine primary effects (e.g. perturbations due to temperature) …” in paragraphs 44, 102, 111, and 113); and
(c) generating an individualized look-up table for the light source based on the measured plurality of light outputs over the said temperature range (e.g., “… calibrating the instrument in an environmental chamber that is cycled and time saturated at various temperatures to create a map of the temperature-gainvoltage response …” in paragraph 109).
The method of Preston lacks an explicit description of details of the “… adjustments in bias voltage …” such as determining a breakdown voltage of the light source. However, “… adjustments in bias voltage …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… pulse injection circuit 152 sends a pulse to the semiconductor-based photomultiplier 130. In an embodiment, the pulse is in the form of a voltage. Injecting the pulse can be performed on a predetermined schedule or in response to a predetermined event, such as a reboot or start-up following maintenance, a shutdown or power outage. In a particular embodiment, every fraction of a second, the magnitude of the pulse can be increased in steps (added to the bias voltage) until the input voltage to the semiconductor-based photomultiplier 130 is pushed above the breakdown threshold at the current operating temperature …” in paragraph 33 of McLaughlin, II). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional bias voltage adjustment (e.g., comprising details such as “pulse injection circuit 152”, in order to “(added to the bias voltage) until the input voltage to the semiconductor-based photomultiplier 130 is pushed above the breakdown threshold at the current operating temperature”) for the unspecified bias voltage adjustment of Preston and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional bias voltage adjustment (e.g., comprising details such as determining a breakdown voltage of the light source,) as the unspecified bias voltage adjustment of Preston.
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 9 in so far as understood, Preston also discloses that further comprising maintaining a constant voltage output of between +/−0.002% and +/−3% of the determined breakdown voltage of the light source (e.g., “… bias voltages used are typically on the order of 1500V (vs. 24V to 32V, or lower, for SiPM embodiments described herein) … VBR is the breakdown voltage (e.g., typically 24.5V) …” in paragraphs 48 and 75). Alternatively, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05) since the bias voltage claimed less than +/−5% of a breakdown voltage range overlap the “… 24V to 32V, or lower …” bias voltage range that is between +/−0.002% and +/−3% of a “… 24.5V …” breakdown voltage disclosed by the cited prior art.
In regard to claim 11 which is dependent on claim 9, the method of Preston lacks an explicit description of details of the “… adjustments in bias voltage …” such as injecting an input pulse into the silicon photomultiplier. However, “… adjustments in bias voltage …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… pulse injection circuit 152 sends a pulse to the semiconductor-based photomultiplier 130. In an embodiment, the pulse is in the form of a voltage. Injecting the pulse can be performed on a predetermined schedule or in response to a predetermined event, such as a reboot or start-up following maintenance, a shutdown or power outage. In a particular embodiment, every fraction of a second, the magnitude of the pulse can be increased in steps (added to the bias voltage) until the input voltage to the semiconductor-based photomultiplier 130 is pushed above the breakdown threshold at the current operating temperature …” in paragraph 33 of McLaughlin, II). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional bias voltage adjustment (e.g., comprising details such as “pulse injection circuit 152”, in order to “(added to the bias voltage) until the input voltage to the semiconductor-based photomultiplier 130 is pushed above the breakdown threshold at the current operating temperature”) for the unspecified bias voltage adjustment of Preston and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional bias voltage adjustment (e.g., comprising details such injecting an input pulse into the silicon photomultiplier) as the unspecified bias voltage adjustment of Preston.
In regard to claim 12 which is dependent on claim 11, Preston also discloses that further comprising receiving an output pulse from the silicon photomultiplier (e.g., “… calibrating the instrument in an environmental chamber that is cycled and time saturated at various temperatures to create a map of the temperature-gainvoltage response …” in paragraph 109).
In regard to claim 13 which is dependent on claim 12, Preston also discloses that further comprising generating a gain value based at least in part on the output pulse of the light source provided over a temperature range of 70 degrees (e.g., “… calibrating the instrument in an environmental chamber that is cycled and time saturated at various temperatures to create a map of the temperature-gainvoltage response …” in paragraph 109).
In regard to claim 14 which is dependent on claim 13, Preston also discloses that the temperature range is between −20° C. and +55° C (e.g., “… -20° C. to 60° C …” in paragraph 113). Alternatively, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05) since the claimed −20°C to +55°C range lie inside the “… -20° C. to 60° C …” range disclosed by the cited prior art.
In regard to claim 15 which is dependent on claim 13, Preston also discloses that further comprising generating a look-up table with the gain value for each degree over the temperature range (e.g., “… calibrating the instrument in an environmental chamber that is cycled and time saturated at various temperatures to create a map of the temperature-gainvoltage response …” in paragraph 109).
In regard to claim 16 which is dependent on claim 15 in so far as understood, Preston also discloses that further comprising maintaining a constant voltage output of +/−1% of the determined breakdown voltage of the light source based on the generated look-up table (e.g., “… bias voltages used are typically on the order of 1500V (vs. 24V to 32V, or lower, for SiPM embodiments described herein) … VBR is the breakdown voltage (e.g., typically 24.5V) …” in paragraphs 48 and 75). Alternatively, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05) since the bias voltage claimed less than +/−5% of a breakdown voltage range overlap the “… 24V to 32V, or lower …” bias voltage range that is +/−1% of a “… 24.5V …” breakdown voltage disclosed by the cited prior art.
In regard to claim 18 which is dependent on claim 17 in so far as understood, Preston also discloses that the apparatus further comprises a temperature sensor adjacent to an interface between the luminescent material and the silicon photomultiplier (e.g., “… PCB for an SiPM typically includes/supports at least one SiPM chip … may also include a temperature probe, an LED for stabilization, … and a logic device (e.g., a microcontroller) for feedback control and stabilization … various stabilization/calibration devices such as a temperature sensor/probe (e.g., a thermocouple, an infrared thermometer) … Sensor data from such sensors may be utilized by logic device 110 to detect stabilization/calibration parameters related to detector 101, and thereby produce more reliable reports of detecting radiation …” in paragraphs 50 and 66).
In regard to claim 19 in so far as understood, Preston discloses a method for stabilizing a radiation detection device, comprising:
(a) a luminescent material optically coupled to a semiconductor-based photomultiplier (e.g., “… embodiments described herein are based on one or more SiPMs (e.g., SiPM chips, pixels, or assemblies) that are coupled to at least one scintillator …” in paragraph 46);
(b) measuring a plurality of light outputs of the luminescent material over a temperature range of 75 degrees (e.g., “… silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) … gain stabilization, where device and/or fabrication parameters are selected or adjusted such that a specific gamma peak will present at a specific location within an energy spectrum. This form of stabilization generally refers to adjustments in bias voltage … With an SiPM, gain stabilization is absolutely necessary for reliable operation … signal processor coupled to the SiPM can retrieve a variety of signal characteristics … calibration procedure may consist of temperature cycling a detector assembly in the presence of an external radiation source (e.g., Cs-137 or another) that provides a gamma peak of interest at which point only events within that gamma peak are interrogated for their signal characteristics. At various temperature stages (e.g., between a range including -20° C. to 60° C.), these signal characteristics may be measured and statistically analyzed using variable screening to determine primary effects (e.g. perturbations due to temperature) …” in paragraphs 44, 102, 111, and 113); and
(c) generating an individualized look-up table for the luminescent material based on the measured plurality of light outputs over said temperature range (e.g., “… calibrating the instrument in an environmental chamber that is cycled and time saturated at various temperatures to create a map of the temperature-gainvoltage response …” in paragraph 109).
The method of Preston lacks an explicit description of details of the “… adjustments in bias voltage …” such as injecting a first input pulse into the semiconductor-based photomultiplier so as to determine a breakdown voltage of the luminescent material. However, “… adjustments in bias voltage …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… pulse injection circuit 152 sends a pulse to the semiconductor-based photomultiplier 130. In an embodiment, the pulse is in the form of a voltage. Injecting the pulse can be performed on a predetermined schedule or in response to a predetermined event, such as a reboot or start-up following maintenance, a shutdown or power outage. In a particular embodiment, every fraction of a second, the magnitude of the pulse can be increased in steps (added to the bias voltage) until the input voltage to the semiconductor-based photomultiplier 130 is pushed above the breakdown threshold at the current operating temperature …” in paragraph 33 of McLaughlin, II). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional bias voltage adjustment (e.g., comprising details such as “pulse injection circuit 152”, in order to “(added to the bias voltage) until the input voltage to the semiconductor-based photomultiplier 130 is pushed above the breakdown threshold at the current operating temperature”) for the unspecified bias voltage adjustment of Preston and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional bias voltage adjustment (e.g., comprising details such as injecting a first input pulse into the semiconductor-based photomultiplier so as to determine a breakdown voltage of the luminescent material) as the unspecified bias voltage adjustment of Preston.
In regard to claim 20 which is dependent on claim 19, Preston also discloses receiving an output pulse from the semiconductor-based photomultiplier (e.g., “… calibrating the instrument in an environmental chamber that is cycled and time saturated at various temperatures to create a map of the temperature-gainvoltage response …” in paragraph 109) over the temperature range of between −20°C. and +55°C (e.g., “… -20° C. to 60° C …” in paragraph 113). Alternatively, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05) since the claimed −20°C to +55°C range lie inside the “… -20° C. to 60° C …” range disclosed by the cited prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5,237,173 teaches PMT gain.
US 5,610,396 teaches PMT gain.
US 7,633,057 teaches PMT gain.
US 9,541,656 teaches SiPM gain.
US 9,835,735 teaches a radiation detector.
US 2018/0092177 teaches PMT gating.
US 2018/0203133 teaches a radiation detector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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)272-3995. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884