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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims status: amended claims: 9, 19; canceled claims: 2, 7, 11-12, 20; new claims: 22-23; the rest is unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in pg.8-9 of the remarks that Gong et al. are silent about “the cathode is configured to be temporarily connected to its activation potential as a result of detection of an ionizing event, and then disconnected from its activation potential, until a further ionizing event occurs”. The examiner respectfully disagrees because para. [0027] of Gong et al. recites “a ray or particle causes avalanche ionization in the GM counter tube, the voltage pulse generated by the output circuit will trigger the time measurement and control unit M, disconnect K1 and connect K2, causing the anode voltage of the GM counter tube to switch rapidly from positive high voltage V1 to ground voltage”. The working state according to para. [0027] is triggered by an ionization event. Therefore, the rejection is maintained and made final.
The 112 rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendments to claims 9 & 19.
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.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 13, 15-18, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (CN 102981178 A; pub. Mar. 20, 2013) in view of Bellinger et al. (US 2020/0150296 A1; pub. May 14, 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Gong et al. disclose: A radiation detection apparatus, the radiation detection apparatus comprising: a Geiger-Muller tube (para. [0027]) comprising two or more electrodes (para. [0027], anode & cathode), comprising an anode and a cathode, wherein the chamber is configured to be charged by temporarily connecting the anode and the cathode to their respective activation potential (para. [0027]), wherein the cathode is configured to be temporarily connected to its activation potential as a result of detection of an ionizing event, and then disconnected from its activation potential, until a further ionizing event occurs (para. [0027]).
Gong et al. are silent about: a chamber equipped with two or more electrodes.
In a similar field of endeavor Bellinger et al. disclose: a Geiger-Muller tube (para. [0065], fig.2) comprising a chamber (para. [0026]) equipped with two or more electrodes (para. [0065], fig.2) motivated by the benefits for a Geiger Muller tube that is safe to operate.
In light of the benefits for a Geiger Muller tube that is safe to operate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the chamber of Bellinger et al. in the apparatus of Gong et al.
Regarding claim 5, Gong et al. and Bellinger et al. disclose: the apparatus comprises a voltage supply unit configured to supply the anode activation potential (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Gong et al. disclose: the cathode is associated with a switch, the switch being capable of connecting and disconnecting the cathode to its activating potential (para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 13, Gong et al. and Bellinger et al. disclose: A method of activating a Geiger- Muller tube, wherein the Geiger-Muller tube comprises a chamber equipped with two or more electrodes comprising an anode and a cathode, wherein the method comprises charging the chamber by temporarily connecting the anode and the cathode to their respective activation potential, wherein the cathode is temporarily connected to its activation potential as a result of detection of an ionizing event, and then disconnected from its activation potential, until a further ionizing event occurs (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 1, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Regarding claim 15, Gong et al. and Bellinger et al. disclose: maintaining the voltage supply to the anode at the anode activation potential (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 13).
Regarding claim 16, Gong et al. disclose: providing a second connection configured to connect the cathode to its activation potential (fig.1 K1 & K2 are switches).
Regarding claim 17, Gong et al. disclose: the second connection comprises a switch (fig.1 K1 & K2 are switches).
Regarding claim 18, Gong et al. disclose: charging the chamber by temporarily connecting the cathode to its activation potential by temporarily closing the switch (para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 21, Gong et al. disclose: A controller for a radiation detection apparatus, the radiation detection apparatus comprising: a Geiger-Muller tube (para. [0027]) comprising an anode and a cathode (para. [0027]), wherein the Geiger-Muller tube is configured to be charged by temporarily connecting the anode and the cathode to their respective activation potential (para. [0027]); a voltage supply unit (fig.1 K1 & K2) configured to continuously and/or permanently supply the anode activation potential; and a cathode interface unit configured to actuate the connection and/or disconnection of the cathode to its activation potential (para. [0027]), wherein the controller is configured to control actuation of the anode voltage supply unit and of the cathode interface unit, wherein controller is configured to temporarily connect the cathode to its activation potential as a result of detection of an ionizing event (para. [0027]), and then disconnect the cathode from its activation potential, until a further ionizing event occurs (para. [0027]).
Gong et al. are silent about: a Geiger-Muller tube comprising a chamber equipped with two or more electrodes.
In a similar field of endeavor Bellinger et al. disclose: a Geiger-Muller tube (para. [0065], fig.2) comprising a chamber (para. [0026]) equipped with two or more electrodes (para. [0065], fig.2) motivated by the benefits for a Geiger Muller tube that is safe to operate.
In light of the benefits for a Geiger Muller tube that is safe to operate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the chamber of Bellinger et al. in the apparatus of Gong et al.
Claims 3, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (CN 102981178 A; pub. Mar. 20, 2013) in view of Bellinger et al. (US 2020/0150296 A1; pub. May 14, 2020) and further in view of Takeuchi et al. (US 2015/0155144 A1; pub. Jun. 4, 2015).
Regarding claim 3, Bellinger et al. disclose: an activation potential of the anode, and wherein the activation potential of the cathode is about OV (para. [0065]).
The combined references are silent about: the activation potential of the anode is about 550V.
In a similar field of endeavor Takeuchi et al. disclose: the activation potential of the anode is about 550V (para. [0043]) motivated by the benefits for an improved Geiger-Muller tube (Takeuchi et al. para. [0045]).
In light of the benefits for an improved Geiger-Muller tube as taught by Takeuchi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gong et al. and Bellinger et al. with the teachings of Takeuchi et al.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Gong et al., Bellinger et al. and Takeuchi et al. disclose: providing a first connection configured to permanently connect the anode to its activation potential (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 3).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (CN 102981178 A; pub. Mar. 20, 2013) in view of Bellinger et al. (US 2020/0150296 A1; pub. May 14, 2020) and further in view of Takeuchi et al. (1) (WO 2016/140112 A1; pub. Sep. 9, 2016).
Regarding claim 4, the combined references are silent about: the anode is maintained at a constant electric potential.
In a similar field of endeavor Takeuchi et al. (1) disclose: the anode is maintained at a constant electric potential (pg.18 last para.) motivated by the benefits for a Geiger-Muller tube that can perform stable radiation measurement (Takeuchi et al. (1) pg.2 last para.).
In light of the benefits for Geiger-Muller tube that can perform stable radiation measurement as taught by Takeuchi et al. (1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gong et al. and Bellinger et al. with the teachings of Takeuchi et al. (1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (CN 102981178 A; pub. Mar. 20, 2013) in view of Bellinger et al. (US 2020/0150296 A1; pub. May 14, 2020) and further in view of in view of Cui et al. (CN 112782745A; pub. May 11, 2021).
Regarding claim 6, the combined references are silent about: the anode activation potential is not determined by or is not defined by a resistor.
In a similar field of endeavor Cui et al. disclose: the anode activation potential is not determined by or is not defined by a resistor (fig.2 show that the anode is temporary activated and no resistor is used) motivated by the benefits for improving the GM tube signal processing effect (Cui et al. para. [0005]).
In light of the benefits for improving the GM tube signal processing effect as taught by Cui et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gong et al. and Bellinger et al. with the teachings of Cui et al.
Claims 9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (CN 102981178 A; pub. Mar. 20, 2013) in view of Bellinger et al. (US 2020/0150296 A1; pub. May 14, 2020) and further in view of Valentine et al. (US 5,206,513; pub. Apr. 27, 1993).
Regarding claim 9, the combined references are silent about: the cathode switch comprises a transistor.
In a similar field of endeavor Valentine et al. disclose: the cathode switch comprises a transistor, (col.11 L25 – 31) motivated by the benefits an improved Geiger-Muller tube (Valentine et al. col.5 L60-68 – col.6 L1-10).
In light of the benefits for an improved Geiger-Muller tube as taught by Valentine et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gong et al. and Bellinger et al. with the teachings of Valentine et al
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Gong et al., Bellinger et al. and Valentine et al. disclose: the switch comprises a transistor (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 9).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (CN 102981178 A; pub. Mar. 20, 2013) in view of Bellinger et al. (US 2020/0150296 A1; pub. May 14, 2020) and further in view of Antonouski (US 2006/0163493 A1; pub. Jul. 27, 2006).
Regarding claim 10, the combined references are silent about: the apparatus comprises a microcontroller unit (MCU) configured to control the anode voltage supply and/or the cathode switch.
In a similar field of endeavor Antonouski discloses: the apparatus comprises a microcontroller unit (MCU) configured to control the anode voltage supply and/or the cathode switch (para. [0008], [0014]) motivated by the benefits a compact & low-cost apparatus.
In light of the benefits for a compact & low-cost apparatus., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gong et al. and Bellinger et al. with the teachings of Antonouski.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (CN 102981178 A; pub. Mar. 20, 2013) in view of Bellinger et al. (US 2020/0150296 A1; pub. May 14, 2020) in view of Valentine et al. (US 5,206,513; pub. Apr. 27, 1993) and further in view of Smith (US 7,123,154 B1; pub. Oct. 17, 2006).
Regarding claim 22, the combined references are silent about: the transistor is an N-type MOSFET ('nFET').
In a similar field of endeavor Smith discloses: the transistor is an N-type MOSFET ('nFET') (col.10 L25-30) motivated by the benefits for a device that exhibit minimal power dissipation therefore enabling efficient operation the Geiger-Muller tube.
In light of the benefits for a device that exhibit minimal power dissipation therefore enabling efficient operation the Geiger-Muller tube, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gong et al. and Bellinger et al. and Valentine et al. with the teachings of Smith.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Gong et al., Bellinger et al., Valentine et al. and Smith disclose: the transistor is an N-type MOSFET ('nFET') (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 22).
Conclusion
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 MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9-6PM.
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, 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights