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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 8 is 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 claim 8, the claim limitation “wherein the sensor is a time-resolved and potentially imaging x- ray spectrometer” is indefinite insofar as the examiner is unclear about the structure of “potentially imaging x-ray spectrometer” and it is impossible to determine the intending scope of the structure of “potentially imaging x-ray spectrometer” in claim 1. Potentially imaging x-ray spectrometers are not an art recognized term and the specification fails to define what “potentially imaging” means.
For the purpose of examination, “potentially imaging x-ray spectrometer” will be ignored.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran et al. WO 2007/133163 in view of Klingner WO 2018/007136.
Regarding claim 1, Moran teaches a method (title; abstract), comprising: embedding a plurality of ions in a surface of a material to define a multivariable and two-dimensional or three-dimensional identifier (para. 0093), the plurality of ions including at least one ion with a first atomic number and at least one ion with a second atomic number different from the first atomic number, the first atomic number and the second atomic number collectively associated with the identifier (para. 0029).
Moran fails to teach activating an ion source with a predetermined energy and using the ion source for embedding the ions.
Klinger teaches activating an ion source with a predetermined energy (pg. 20 para. 1; primary ions) and using the ion source for embedding the ions (pg. 2 para. 3-9) for the purpose of imaging the secondary particles generated by interaction of the primary ion beam with the object (pg. 2 para. 3-9)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have activating an ion source with a predetermined energy and using the ion source for embedding the ions as taught by Klinger in the method of Moran for the purpose of imaging the secondary particles generated by interaction of the primary ion beam with the object.
Regarding claim 3, Moran teaches wherein the embedding is performed without any preparation other than providing the surface (para. 0093; in the embodiment with embedded ions, no surface preparation is disclosed).
Regarding claim 4, Moran fails to teach wherein the embedding includes sending, using the ion source, a set of ions through a photomask associated with the identifier to cause the surface of the material to be embedded with the set of ions.
Klingner teaches wherein the embedding includes sending, using the ion source, a set of ions through a photomask associated with the identifier to cause the surface of the material to be embedded with the set of ions (29; pg. 11 para. 1-2) for the purpose of controlling the charge state of the ions (pg. 11 para. 1-2)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the embedding includes sending, using the ion source, a set of ions through a photomask associated with the identifier to cause the surface of the material to be embedded with the set of ions as taught by Klinger in the method of Moran for the purpose of controlling the charge state of the ions.
Regarding claim 5, Moran fails to teach feeding a gas through a manifold to define the plurality of ions; and generating the plurality of ions using the gas.
Klingner teaches feeding a gas through a manifold to define the plurality of ions (11; pg. 16 para. 10-12); and generating the plurality of ions using the gas (pg. 16 para. 10-12) for the purpose of generating an ion beam (pg. 16 para. 10-12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have feeding a gas through a manifold to define the plurality of ions; and generating the plurality of ions using the gas as taught by Klinger in the method of Moran for the purpose of generating an ion beam.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran et al. US 2007/133163 and Klingner WO 2018/007136 in further view of the article “Ion beam analysis (IBA) and instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) for forensic characterisation of authentic Viagra® and of sildenafil-based illegal products” by Romolo et al.
Regarding claim 2, Moran teaches wherein the embedding is performed at a first time (para. 0093), the method further comprising: performing non-destructive characterization of the material associated with at least one of a supply chain verification and management, or a counterfeit detection (para. 0024).
Moran and Klinger fails to teach irradiating, using an ion source at a second time, the material to cause x-ray emissions from the material in response to irradiating the material, the x-ray emissions indicative of the multivariable and two-dimensional or three-dimensional identifier; and the non-destructive characterization of the material based on the x-ray emissions.
Romolo teaches irradiating, using an ion source at a second time, the material to cause x-ray emissions from the material in response to irradiating the material (abstract; “particle-induced X-ray emission”; section 2.2), the x-ray emissions indicative of the multivariable and two-dimensional or three-dimensional identifier (4. Discussion para. 1; “elemental profiles” are multivariable); and the non-destructive characterization of the material based on the x-ray emissions (5. Conclusion para. 2) for the purpose of identifying illegal products (abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have irradiating, using an ion source at a second time, the material to cause x-ray emissions from the material in response to irradiating the material, the x-ray emissions indicative of the multivariable and two-dimensional or three-dimensional identifier; and the non-destructive characterization of the material based on the x-ray emissions as taught by Romolo in the method of Moran and Klinger for the purpose of imaging the secondary particles generated by interaction of the primary ion beam with the object.
Claim 6, 8, 12-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingner WO 2018/007136.
Regarding claim 6, Klingner teaches an apparatus (fig. 1), comprising: an ion source (3) configured to send to a target a pulse or a pulse chain of ions (pg. 17 para. 2), to cause the target to emit photons in response to the ions impacting the target (pg. 2 para. 1-6); and a sensor (39, 41) configured to detect the photons emitted from the target (pg. 2 para. 1-6).
Klingner does not specifically disclose the ion pulse having a 10-500 ns pulse width and a current density between 1 to 10,000 A/cm2 on the target. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to recited range (10-500 ns pulse width and a current density between 1 to 10,000 A/cm2) through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention to have the ion pulse having a 10-500 ns pulse width and a current density between 1 to 10,000 A/cm2 on the target in the apparatus of Klingner for the purpose of optimizing the generation of photons for imaging.
Regarding claim 8, Klingner teaches wherein the sensor is a time-resolved (pg. 6 para. 10 “With regard to the spectrometry of scattered or sputtered particles, it is thus possible, for example on a size scale of a few to a few hundred nanometers, to achieve previously unattainable time resolutions and thus energy and mass resolutions”) and potentially imaging x-ray spectrometer.
Regarding claim 12, Klingner teaches the sensor (39, 41) disposed relative to the ion source (3) to be outside an outer circumference of the beam shape (5) when the ion source is operative (fig. 1).
Klingner does not explicitly disclose the ion source is configured to send the pulsed ions in a substantially circular or annular beam shape, however, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in shapes has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). A change in shape is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of shape is not of patentable significance
Regarding claim 13, Klingner teaches the ion source (3) is configured to send the pulsed ions (5) in a substantially linear beam shape (fig. 1), the sensor (39, 41) disposed relative to the ion source to be outside an outer boundary of the substantially linear beam shape when the ion source is operative (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Klingner teaches a method, comprising: sending, from an ion source (3) and to a target, pulsed ions on the target (pg. 17 para. 2); and detecting photons emitted from the target in response to the ions impacting the target (39, 41; pg. 2 para. 1-6).
Klingner does not specifically disclose the ion pulse having a 10-500 ns pulse width and a current density greater than 1 A/cm2 on the target. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to recited range (10-500 ns pulse width and a current density greater than 1 A/cm2) through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention to have the ion pulse having a 10-500 ns pulse width and a current density greater than 1 A/cm2 on the target in the apparatus of Klingner for the purpose of optimizing the generation of photons for imaging.
Regarding claim 20, Klingner teaches the ion source is configured to send a set of ions through a photomask that is associated with an identifier (29; pg. 11 para. 1-2) and that is disposed between the ion source and the target (fig. 1); the target is embedded with the set of ions (pg. 2 para. 3-4 “primary ions”), the method further comprising: producing an output signal based on the detected photons and associated with the set of ions (pg. 2 para. 5-7), identifying the identifier based on the output signal (pg. 2 para. 5-7; imaging signal after passing through photomask).
Claim 7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingner WO 2018/007136 in view of the article “Coincidence ion imaging with a fast frame camera” by Lee et al. and Ludwig US 2005/0156109.
Regarding claim 7, Klinger fails to teach wherein the sensor includes a thermopile array and a high-speed complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (hCMOS) framing camera having a readout, the hCMOS framing camera is coupled to the thermopile array.
Ludwig teaches wherein the sensor (1) includes a thermopile array (6) coupled to the sensor (fig. 1) for the purpose of compensating for temperature variations.
Lee teaches a high-speed complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (hCMOS) framing camera having a readout (abstract) for the purpose of improving resolution (Conclusion).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sensor includes a thermopile array and a high-speed complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (hCMOS) framing camera having a readout, the hCMOS framing camera is coupled to the thermopile array as taught by Ludwig and Lee in the apparatus of Klinger for the purpose of compensating for temperature variations and improving resolution.
Regarding claim 9, Klinger teaches wherein the sensor is configured to capture a signal from x-rays (pg. 2 para. 6 photons).
Klinger fails to teach wherein the sensor includes a thermopile array configured to utilize a solid state camera readout.
Ludwig teaches wherein the sensor (1) includes a thermopile array (6) coupled to the sensor (fig. 1) for the purpose of compensating for temperature variations.
Lee teaches a a solid state camera readout and configured to capture a signal from x-rays (abstract) for the purpose of improving resolution (Conclusion).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the sensor includes a thermopile array configured to utilize a solid state camera readout as taught by Ludwig and Lee in the apparatus of Klinger for the purpose of compensating for temperature variations and improving resolution.
Regarding claim 10, Klinger fails to teach wherein the sensor includes a thermopile array and a solid-state camera having a readout coupled to the thermopile array.
Ludwig teaches wherein the sensor (1) includes a thermopile array (6) coupled to the sensor (fig. 1) for the purpose of compensating for temperature variations.
Lee teaches a a solid state camera readout and configured to capture a signal from x-rays (abstract) for the purpose of improving resolution (Conclusion).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the sensor includes a thermopile array and a solid-state camera having a readout coupled to the thermopile array as taught by Ludwig and Lee in the apparatus of Klinger for the purpose of compensating for temperature variations and improving resolution.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingner WO 2018/007136 in view of Ludwig US 2005/0156109 and Anan et al. US 2017/0067838.
Regarding claim 11, Klingner fails to teach wherein the sensor includes (1) a layered and filter thermopile array that is configured to select specific energy photons, and (2) a x-ray dispersive grating dispersed imaging spectrometer coupled to the layered and filtered thermopile array.
Ludwig teaches the sensor (1) includes a layered and filter thermopile array (6; abstract; para. 0002, 0013; claim 9) that is configured to select specific energy photons (apparatus claims cover what the device is not what a device does. See MPEP 2114.II. Since there is no structural differences from the prior art, being configured to select specific energy photons does not carry patentable weight) coupled to the sensor (fig. 1) for the purpose of compensating for temperature variations.
Anan teaches a x-ray dispersive grating dispersed imaging spectrometer (fig. 2, 3; para. 0005, 0065, 0071) for the purpose of enabling high-sensitivity analysis (para. 0036).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the sensor includes (1) a layered and filter thermopile array that is configured to select specific energy photons, and (2) a x-ray dispersive grating dispersed imaging spectrometer coupled to the layered and filtered thermopile array as taught by Ludwig and Anan in the apparatus of Klinger for the purpose of compensating for temperature variations and enabling high-sensitivity analysis.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingner WO 2018/007136 in view of the article “Ion beam analysis (IBA) and instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) for forensic characterisation of authentic Viagra® and of sildenafil-based illegal products” by Romolo et al.
Regarding claim 14, Klingner teaches an apparatus (fig. 1), comprising: a plurality of ion sources (3; pg. 3 para. 6 “gas field ion sources” plural implies an embodiment with a plurality of sources), each ion source from the plurality of ion sources uniquely associated with a ion from a plurality of ions (pg. 3 para. 6 “Helium, neon, argon, xenon, hydrogen or nitrogen”), each ion source from the plurality of ion sources configured to send to a target pulsed ions (pg. 17 para. 2), to cause ions from the pulsed ions for that ion source to be embedded in the target (pg. 2 para. 1-6).
Klingner does not specifically disclose the ion pulse having a 10-500 ns pulse width and a current density between 1 to 10,000 A/cm2 on the target. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to recited range (10-500 ns pulse width and a current density between 1 to 10,000 A/cm2) through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention to have the ion pulse having a 10-500 ns pulse width and a current density between 1 to 10,000 A/cm2 on the target in the apparatus of Klingner for the purpose of optimizing the generation of photons for imaging.
Klingner fails to teach the ions embedded in the target collectively representing a particle-induced X-ray emission (PIXE) signature.
Romolo teaches the ions embedded in the target collectively representing a particle-induced X-ray emission (PIXE) signature (abstract) for the purpose of identifying illegal products (abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ions embedded in the target collectively representing a particle-induced X-ray emission (PIXE) signature as taught by Romolo in the apparatus of Klingner for the purpose of identifying illegal products.
Regarding claim 15, Klinger teaches wherein each ion source from the plurality of ion sources are uniquely associated with a material from a plurality of materials (pg. 3 para. 6).
Klinger and Lee do not specifically disclose the materials having an inner-shell X-ray emission greater than about 20 keV. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to recited range (greater than about 20 keV) through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention to have the materials having an inner-shell X-ray emission greater than about 20 keV in the apparatus of Klingner and Lee for the purpose of optimizing x-ray imaging.
Regarding claim 16, Klingner teaches wherein each ion source from the plurality of ion sources is configured to send to the target the pulsed ions to cause ions from the pulsed ions for that ion source to be embedded and superimposed at a common location in the target (fig. 1; the ion beam 5 which is embedding ions on target 21 are on the same location so are superimposed).
Regarding claim 17, Klingner teaches wherein the plurality of ion sources are configured to send the pulsed ions through a photomask that is associated with an identifier (29; pg. 11 para. 1-2) and that is disposed between the plurality of ion sources and the target (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Klingner teaches wherein the target is formed from a plurality of materials (the target 21 is a solid and a purpose of the device is to determine the composition; pg. 14 para. 5), the plurality of ion sources is formed from a plurality of materials different from the plurality of materials of the target (pg. 3 para. 6; the sources are made of gasses which are different than an known solid).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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 on (571)272-2995. The fax number for the organization where this application or processing 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.
/RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights