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 .
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(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 5, 9, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the newly added claim limitation “wherein maintaining the constant centroid shift comprises maintaining a” in the application as filed (MPEP § 2163.04).
Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the newly added claim limitation “maintaining a constant voltage output of between +/-0.002 and +/-3° of the determined breakdown voltage of light source from the individualized look-up table for the light source to maintain a constant centroid shift at zero” in the application as filed (MPEP § 2163.04).
Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the newly added claim limitation combination of “a luminescent material” and “a scintillator” in the application as filed (MPEP § 2163.04).
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above also fail(s) to comply with the written description requirement for the same reasons.
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 and 3 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 “the temperature range of 75°C” in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the temperature range of 75°C” in the last line. 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.
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 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 degrees” recited in claim 1.
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 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).
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 the 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 the 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 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, Preston also discloses that the apparatus maintains a bias voltage so that an energy output is 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.
Claim(s) 7 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but some are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant's remaining arguments filed 13 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Preston is silent to an “apparatus comprising a semiconductor-based photomultiplier, the apparatus maintaining a constant centroid shift at zero over a temperature range of 75 degrees” as recited in amended independent claim 1 because Preston does not disclose a precise individually created temperature look-up table for each device that would maintain the centroid shift at zero and instead relies on calculations to give an estimate. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a precise individually created temperature look-up table for each device”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It should be noted that Preston discloses “… a statistical map of pulse width to temperature may be constructed …” on “a logic device (e.g., a microcontroller) for feedback control and stabilization” (see page 9 of the previous office action) wherein for “a logic device (e.g., a microcontroller) for feedback control and stabilization”, map can also be labeled as table. It should also be noted that “precise” does not appear to be in the specification as filed.
Applicant argues that claims 4 and 5 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1 and are likewise patentable over the cited reference for at least the reasons presented with respect to claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant argues that Preston and McLaughlin, II, either alone or in combination, do not teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious each and every limitation of claim 1 because McLaughlin does not cure the deficiencies of Preston. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant argues that claims 9 and 19 contain similar limitations to claim 1 and are likewise patentable over the cited references for at least the reasons presented with respect to claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant argues that claims 7, 10-18, and 20 depend either directly or indirectly from claims 1, 9, and 19, respectively and are likewise patentable over the cited reference for at least the reasons presented with respect to claim 1, 9, and 19. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above.
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights