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:
“the loading unit configured to load…” in claim 1;
“the first sub-locking unit configured to lock…” in claim 1; and
“the second sub-locking unit is configured to lock…” in claim 1.
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 17 further recites that the distance threshold is determined “based on the radiation dose of the radiation device and the information associated with the user of the terminal device,” the latter indicating whether the user wears a radiation protection suit. This limitation is addressed below under 35 § USC 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 17 recites determining the distance threshold “based on the radiation dose of the radiation device and the information associated with the user of the terminal device,” wherein the information indicates “whether the user wears a radiation protection suit.” Parent claim 14 devices “radiation device” to include “a mobile x-ray device, mobile alpha-ray device, mobile beta-ray device, mobile gamma-ray device, mobile alpha ray device, mobile beta-ray device, a mobile proton heavy particle accelerator, or the like ([0173]). This group spans both photon-based (x-ray and γ-ray) and charged-particle-based radiation (α-ray, β-ray, proton), each governed by different attenuation and shielding physics, meaning the “radiation protection suit” differs substantially across these types of radiation.
As to the calculation, the specification discloses only that “the distance threshold may be calculated based on the radiation dose or pseudo-radiation dose of the radiation device 110 according to theoretical calculations” or “obtained based on an actual measurement” ([0202]), and once the protective-suit information is added, the distance threshold may be calculated based on theoretical calculations based on the radiation dose or pseudo-radiation dose of the radiation device 110 and whether the user wears the radiation protection suit, or obtained based on actual measurement” ([0203]). No formula, model, exposure limit, or worked example is provided for deriving a distance threshold from a radiation dose and protective suit status for any of the different radiation device types.
Applying the wands factors of In re Wands:
The claim is extremely broad, reciting an unbounded genus of radiation device types and an unspecified threshold calculation method.
The state of the art in radiation dosimetry is highly unpredictable across different radiation modalities since photon-based radiation and particle-based radiation follow different attenuation models such that a single protective suit-based adjustment cannot be presumed to translate across radiation types.
No working example is disclosed.
Given the unpredictability a person of ordinary skill in the art would be required to undertake undue experimentation.
The claimed scope is not commensurate with the written disclosure and does not enable a person of ordinary skill to practice the full scope of the claim without undue experimentation.
For the same reasons, the specification does not demonstrate possession of a threshold-determination technique aligned with the full scope of claim 17. The balance of claims is rejected on dependence and for failing to overcome the raised issues.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites the phrase:
“wherein the one of the terminal device and the radiation device that includes the wireless signal receiving device is further configured to:
obtain information associated with a user of the terminal device, the information associated with the user of the terminal device indicating whether the user wears a radiation protection suit; and
determine the distance threshold based on the radiation dose of the radiation device and the information associated with the user of the terminal device”
The instant terminal device or radiation device is configured to perform a data-processing step of “determining the distance threshold…”. MPEP 2161.01(I) explains that computer-implemented limitations (including under 35 USC § 112(f), see MPEP 2181(II)) must have explicit support in the form of an algorithm, flow chart, mathematical equations, or otherwise. The specification fails to provide the explicit support as required. Accordingly, the claims are rejected. The balance of claims is rejected on dependence and for failing to overcome the raised issues.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 and 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding independent claims 1, 12 and 13, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements, wherein the safety protection section includes a loading unit and a lock assembly, the loading unit is configured to load an external component, the external component including a radiation assembly, the lock assembly includes a first lock, a second lock, a first sub-locking unit, and a second sub-locking unit, the second lock is disposed on the loading unit, the first sub-locking unit is configured to lock the first lock and the second lock, the second sub-locking unit is configured to lock the first sub-locking unit, and the external component drives the second sub-locking unit to unlock the first sub- locking unit when the external component is loaded on the loading unit.
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