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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“receiving unit” in claim 9 ([0017, 0020, 0037]);
“output unit” in claim 9 ([0018]);
“residual light amplification unit” in claim 12 ([0011, 0033]); and
“second receiving unit” in claim 17 ([0020]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
Claims 9-20 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.
Claim 9 recites the phrase “receiving unit”. The instant phase invokes 112(f) as detailed above under Claim Interpretation. However, the supporting disclosure fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. See MPEP 2181(III). While the specification provides descriptions of structure may be associated with the claimed function, the disclosure does not clearly link. Accordingly, the claims are indefinite. The same rationale applies to each of the other listed 112(f) phrases (“output unit”, “residual light amplification unit”, and “second receiving unit”) in the Claim Interpretation subsection. The balance of claims are rejected on dependence for failing to address the issue.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BENTZ et al. (US 11630218 B1).
Regarding claim 1, BENTZ discloses a method for visualizing X-rays emitted by an X-ray device, the method comprising:
irradiating the X-rays from the X-ray device thereby producing X-rays (“[t]he present invention may be used with any type of ionizing radiation” and that “[o]ne type of ionizing radiation … is x-ray, both soft (having an energy less than about 10 keV) and hard (having an energy greater than about 10 keV),” and that “[s]ources of x-ray are prevalent in several technologies” (col. 8, lines 35-42);
ascertaining signals representing radiation from an initial radiation spectrum, wherein the radiation from an initial radiation spectrum has been produced by scintillation of the X-rays in a gaseous scintillator in a form of nitrogen present in ambient air (“radioluminescence is ambient air occurs as a product of the excitation and relaxation of molecular nitrogen by the ionizing radiation 130”, col. 8, ll. 52-58); and
outputting at least one image ascertained from the signals (“optical tomographic mapping system 100 includes three cameras 110A, 110B, 110C…thereby resulting in a plurality of UV images”; col. 10, ll. 3-21).
BENTZ does not specifically disclose (1) using an x-ray tube of an x-ray device in the specific embodiment, or (2) wherein the visualized x-rays are scattered x-rays from an examination object. With feature (1), BENTZ explains in the background that “ionizing radiation can also be generated artificially by x-ray tubes” and references “medical physics applications” where “various embodiments of the present invention provide the advantage of not requiring a phantom” (col. 1, ll. 61-63; col. 9, ll. 1-14; col. 13-50). Substitution of a known technique (x-ray tubes) to prior art elements (x-ray source emitter) to obtain predictable results (artificial ionizing radiation production from a compact source) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. With feature (2), applying a known technique (accounting for and measuring scattered radiation in a medical application using ionizing radiation) to a known device (invention of BENTZ) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (imaging emitted and scattered ionizing radiation) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
PNG
media_image1.png
584
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of BENTZ shows the 3 camera UV tomographic imaging system 100 of ionizing radiation 130 creating radioluminescence in ambient atmosphere.
Regarding claim 2, BENTZ discloses wherein the radiation from an initial radiation spectrum is filtered with respect to visible residual light by at least one filter element and a radiation component formed by UV radiation is converted into visible light by at least one conversion element (each camera includes a UV filter which is converted into visible light by a wavelength conversion by an intensified relay optical system; col. 3, ll. 26-27, 41-44; col. 6, ll. 2-4, 16-19).
Regarding claim 3, BENTZ discloses wherein the radiation component converted into visible light is amplified (intensified charge coupled device (ICCD); col. 3, ll. 54-66).
Regarding claim 4, BENTZ wherein the visible light is amplified by a residual light amplification element (photocathode, microchannel plate, and phosphor screen; col. 6, ll. 2-4).
Regarding claim 5, BENTZ discloses wherein the amplified radiation component converted into visible light is imaged onto a sensor (each of the at least one camera includes a CCD sensor, an intensified CCD sensor, or an intensified relay optical system; col. 6, ll. 16-19).
Regarding claim 6, BENTZ discloses wherein the converted visible light is recorded by the sensor and converted into a 2D image or a 3D image of a radiation distribution (tomographic mapping system 100; col. 6, 39-43).
Regarding claim 7, BENTZ discloses wherein the 2D or the 3D image is displayed on a display unit, stored in a memory unit, or displayed on the display unit and stored in the memory unit (image processor includes a memory that stores instruction… [to] reconstruct a 3-D tomographic map”; col. 3, ll. 35-40). Applying known techniques (displaying stored data on a display) to a known device (2D or 3D map of BENTZ) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (displaying data for a user) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 8, BENTZ further discloses images the scene with its cameras and “spatially register the UV images” using a reference source (col. 3, ll. 27-38); recording a 2-D or 3-D image of the scene (the room). Displaying the 2D or 3D images of the scene and displaying it together would have been obvious in order to show the spatial relationship of the radiation to the scene.
Regarding claim 9, BENTZ discloses medical system for visualizing scattered X-rays, the medical system comprising:
an X-ray device to emit X-rays configured to irradiate an examination object (“[t]he present invention may be used with any type of ionizing radiation” and that “[o]ne type of ionizing radiation … is x-ray, both soft (having an energy less than about 10 keV) and hard (having an energy greater than about 10 keV),” and that “[s]ources of x-ray are prevalent in several technologies” (col. 8, lines 35-42),
a receiving unit configured for ascertaining signals representing radiation from an initial radiation spectrum, wherein the radiation from an initial radiation spectrum is produced by scintillation of the X-rays in a gaseous scintillator in a form of nitrogen present in ambient air (“radioluminescence is ambient air occurs as a product of the excitation and relaxation of molecular nitrogen by the ionizing radiation 130”, col. 8, ll. 52-58), and
an output unit for outputting at least one image ascertained from the signals (“optical tomographic mapping system 100 includes three cameras 110A, 110B, 110C…thereby resulting in a plurality of UV images”; col. 10, ll. 3-21).
BENTZ does not specifically disclose (1) using an x-ray tube of an x-ray device in the specific embodiment, or (2) wherein the visualized x-rays are scattered x-rays from an examination object. With feature (1), BENTZ explains in the background that “ionizing radiation can also be generated artificially by x-ray tubes” and references “medical physics applications” where “various embodiments of the present invention provide the advantage of not requiring a phantom” (col. 1, ll. 61-63; col. 9, ll. 1-14; col. 13-50). Substitution of a known technique (x-ray tubes) to prior art elements (x-ray source emitter) to obtain predictable results (artificial ionizing radiation production from a compact source) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. With feature (2), applying a known technique (accounting for and measuring scattered radiation in a medical application using ionizing radiation) to a known device (invention of BENTZ) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (imaging emitted and scattered ionizing radiation) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 10, BENTZ discloses wherein the receiving unit has at least one filter element for filtering out residual light and a conversion element for converting UV radiation into visible light (each camera includes a UV filter which is converted into visible light by a wavelength conversion by an intensified relay optical system; col. 3, ll. 26-27, 41-44; col. 6, ll. 2-4, 16-19).
Regarding claim 11, BENTZ discloses wherein the conversion element comprises a fluorescent screen (phosphor screen; col. 6, ll. 2-4).
Regarding claim 12, BENTZ discloses wherein the receiving unit includes a residual light amplification unit (ICCD, microchannel plate; col. 6, ll. 2-4).
Regarding claim 13, BENTZ discloses the receiving unit includes a sensor for recording light and converting the light into a 2D image or a 3D image of a radiation distribution (tomographic mapping system 100; col. 6, 39-43).
Regarding claim 14, BENTZ discloses wherein the receiving unit and/or the output unit are configured as a camera, an ultraviolet (UV) camera, virtual reality (VR) glasses, or augmented reality (AR) glasses (UV sensors 110A-C; col. 5, l. 66 – col. 6, l. 43).
Regarding claim 15, BENTZ does not specify wherein the X-ray device includes an X-ray detector for recording X-ray images of the examination object. BENTZ explains that the x-ray device can comprise a medical physics application such as radiotherapy (col. 13, ll. 30-50), wherein CT, SPECT, PET, and x-ray imaging systems are well-known x-ray and gamma ray applications that comprise ionizing radiation detector for detecting x-rays from the source, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include in the instant invention of BENTZ.
Regarding claim 16, BENTZ discloses a memory unit configured for storing the at least one image (image processor includes a memory that stores instruction… [to] reconstruct a 3-D tomographic map”; col. 3, ll. 35-40).
Regarding claim 17, BENTZ discloses a plurality of cameras 110A-C comprising the second receiving unit configured for recording a 2D image or 3D image of a room (FIG 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P EST.
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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights