CTNF 18/858,815 CTNF 101332 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0024]: “characteristic of continuously incidence” should read “characteristic of continuous incidence” or “characteristic of being continuously incident” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claims 1-10, the detector is essential to the function of the claimed invention, and the structure of the detector is further limited in the dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10. However, in the independent claims 1 and 6, the detector is never explicitly claimed as part of the device or method. Rather, only a processing unit configured to determine an incoming direction of radiation by a detector using a scintillator is claimed. While information relating to a detector is claimed as being determined by the processor(s), notice that a detector itself is never claimed, and is stated in a way that it may exist external to the claimed invention. Therefore, the independent claims should explicitly recite the detector. Regarding claims 4 and 9, it is unclear from the claim language alone what is meant by “determining an incoming direction of the radiation based on the number of path determinations”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the number of path determinations”, as the step/function of determining a path of radiation linearly connecting two scintillators is only recited as occurring once in the claims. For examination purposes, it is understood from the specification that this claim refers to determining the actual path(s) of incoming radiation based on the path(s) with a sufficiently large number(s) of repeated determinations, thereby eliminating falsely determined path(s) with lower counts. Regarding claims 5 and 10, it is unclear from the claim language what is meant by “the scintillators having hollows therebetween”. For examination purposes, it is understood this claim refers to the plurality of scintillators being arranged in a three-dimensional array structure, wherein the inner portion of the array is empty rather than containing more scintillators on the inside of the arrangement. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendonça et al., "Analysis of Cosmic Rays' Atmospheric Effects and Their Relationships to Cutoff Rigidity and Zenith Angle Using Global Muon Detector Network Data," Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics , September 2019, 124(12):9791-9813 in view of Kinstler (US 20060169489 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Mendonça teaches a processing unit, including one or more processors (implicitly present), determining an incoming direction of radiation by a detector using a scintillator (page 9793, last paragraph). Mendonça does not teach a control device comprising the above; and a control unit, including one or more processors, configured to control a solenoid coil such that a magnetic null point does not face the incoming direction of the radiation. In the same field of endeavor, Kinstler teaches a control unit, including one or more processors (paragraph [0011]), configured to control a solenoid coil such that a magnetic null point does not face the incoming direction of the radiation (paragraph [0011] describes the processor controlling the orientation of the solenoid relative to detected radiation to improve the shielding device; paragraphs [0027] and [0036] describe, in particular, the orientation being adjusted so that the radiation approaches perpendicular to the axis of the magnetic field, i.e. not facing the magnetic null point). In light of the teachings of Kinstler, 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 teachings of Mendonça such that the detector setup is applied to a control device for adjusting the orientation of a magnetic field relative to the incoming direction of radiation. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine these teachings to create a control device capable of adjusting the orientation of the field using accurate and real-time detection of the radiation direction, rather than relying on communication from satellites or Earth. Regarding claim 2, Mendonça teaches the detector including a plurality of scintillators (Figure 2), and the processing unit being configured to determine an incoming direction of radiation based on positions of two scintillators that emit light beams by the radiation (page 9793, last paragraph). Regarding claim 3, Mendonça teaches the detector including a plurality of scintillators (Figure 2). Mendonça does not teach the processing unit being configured to determine energy of radiation based on a time difference between light emission peaks of two scintillators that emit light beams by the radiation. Measuring the speed (and thereby the energy, related to speed via well-known relativistic equations) of an object (e.g. a particle) by measuring the time it takes to travel a certain distance is ubiquitous and well-known to one of ordinary skill. Configuring the processing unit to estimate the energy of the radiation based on simple time-of-flight measurements between detectors is therefore obvious as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 I. Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Mendonça teaches the detector including a plurality of scintillators (Figure 2), and the processing unit being configured to determine a path of radiation linearly connecting two scintillators emitting light beams due to the radiation (page 9793, last paragraph), Mendonça does not teach the processing unit being configured to determine an incoming direction of the radiation based on the number of path determinations. However, Mendonça does teach eliminating/not considering potential paths of radiation that are prone to high counting error (page 9796, last paragraph and Figure 4). In general, the idea of eliminating erroneous detections via various algorithms is well-known in radiation detection. In using the detector of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill would easily notice that numerous possible different directions of incidence are detected due to the simultaneous and continuous activation of several scintillators and would thus be motivated to accurately determine the actual direction. Comparing the number of determinations of each possible path to eliminate the paths below a certain threshold and accept those paths with a higher number is a very basic algorithm that comprises nothing more than mathematical comparison. One of ordinary skill could therefore easily configure the processing unit to perform this function as a matter of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Mendonça teaches the detector including a plurality of scintillators arranged in a lateral direction, a depth direction, and a height direction (Figure 2). Mendonça does not explicitly teach the scintillators having hollows therebetween, insofar as this limitation is interpreted according to the above 112(b) rejection. The three-dimensional detector array of Mendonça Figure 2 has only two layers and therefore does not need hollow portions in the center region. If one were to expand the three-dimensional detector structure of Mendonça Fig. 2 to include three or more layers in order to detect radiation incident from the sides rather than only from above, one of ordinary skill would naturally be motivated to hollow out the inner portion of the detector (i.e. remove the central 4x4 scintillators in the middle layer(s) of the expanded setup). As detecting the linear path of radiation only requires two detection points, only the outer layers of the detector would be needed; including more would unnecessarily complicate the detection data and require more material for creating and holding the inner scintillators . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendonça in view of Kinstler . Regarding claim 6, Mendonça teaches determining an incoming direction of radiation by a detector using a scintillator (page 9793, last paragraph). Mendonça does not teach a control method executed by a control device; the method comprising both the above step and controlling a solenoid coil such that a magnetic null point does not face the incoming direction of the radiation. In the same field of endeavor, Kinstler teaches controlling a solenoid coil such that a magnetic null point does not face the incoming direction of the radiation (paragraph [0011] describes the processor controlling the orientation of the solenoid relative to detected radiation to improve the shielding device; paragraphs [0027] and [0036] describe, in particular, the orientation being adjusted so that the radiation approaches perpendicular to the axis of the magnetic field, i.e. not facing the magnetic null point). In light of the teachings of Kinstler, 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 teachings of Mendonça such that the detector setup is applied to a control device for adjusting the orientation of a magnetic field relative to the incoming direction of radiation. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine these teachings to create a device capable of adjusting the orientation of the field using accurate and real-time detection of the radiation direction, rather than relying on communication from satellites or Earth. Regarding claim 7, Mendonça teaches the detector including a plurality of scintillators (Figure 2), and the control method further comprising determining an incoming direction of radiation based on positions of two scintillators that emit light beams by the radiation (page 9793, last paragraph). Regarding claim 8, Mendonça teaches the detector including a plurality of scintillators (Figure 2). Mendonça does not teach the control method further comprising determining energy of radiation based on a time difference between light emission peaks of two scintillators that emit light beams by the radiation. Measuring the speed (and thereby the energy, related to speed via well-known relativistic equations) of an object (e.g. a particle) by measuring the time it takes to travel a certain distance is ubiquitous and well-known to one of ordinary skill. Estimating the energy of the radiation based on simple time-of-flight measurements between detectors is therefore obvious as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 I. Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Mendonça teaches the detector including a plurality of scintillators (Figure 2), and the control method further comprising determining a path of radiation linearly connecting two scintillators emitting light beams due to the radiation (page 9793, last paragraph), Mendonça does not teach determining an incoming direction of the radiation based on the number of path determinations. However, Mendonça does teach eliminating/not considering potential paths of radiation that are prone to high counting error (page 9796, last paragraph and Figure 4). In general, the idea of eliminating erroneous detections via various algorithms is well-known in radiation detection. In using the detector of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill would easily notice that numerous possible different directions of incidence are detected due to the simultaneous and continuous activation of several scintillators and would thus be motivated to accurately determine the actual direction. Comparing the number of determinations of each possible path to eliminate the paths below a certain threshold and accept those paths with a higher number is a very basic algorithm that comprises nothing more than mathematical comparison. One of ordinary skill could therefore easily perform this step as a matter of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Mendonça teaches the detector including a plurality of scintillators arranged in a lateral direction, a depth direction, and a height direction (Figure 2). Mendonça does not explicitly teach the scintillators having hollows therebetween, insofar as this limitation is interpreted according to the above 112(b) rejection. The three-dimensional detector array of Mendonça Figure 2 has only two layers and therefore does not need hollow portions in the center region. If one were to expand the three-dimensional detector structure of Mendonça Fig. 2 to include three or more layers in order to detect radiation incident from the sides rather than only from above, one of ordinary skill would naturally be motivated to hollow out the inner portion of the detector (i.e. remove the central 4x4 scintillators in the middle layer(s) of the expanded setup). As detecting the linear path of radiation only requires two detection points, only the outer layers of the detector would be needed; including more would unnecessarily complicate the detection data and require more material for creating and holding the inner scintillators. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM L TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-8389. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-4pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Makiya can be reached at (571) 272-2273. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /WILLIAM LAURENCE TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2884 /DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/858,815 Page 2 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/858,815 Page 3 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/858,815 Page 4 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/858,815 Page 5 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/858,815 Page 6 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/858,815 Page 7 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/858,815 Page 8 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/858,815 Page 9 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/858,815 Page 10 Art Unit: 2884
Prosecution Insights