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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 further limits the abrasion step of its supposed parent claim. Claim 10 has no abrasion step. Claim 12 therefore does not further limit claim 10. This is likely improper dependence, as abrasion is introduced in claim 11. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (2021/0356611) in view of Choquette (2008/0164407).
Regarding claim 1, Nelson teaches a beta-particle detector device [for nuclear medicine, in particular adapted for applications of mini-invasive radio-guided surgery] (purpose limitations, particularly in the preamble, are generally not limiting), the device being provided with an outer shell (Nelson, housing 110), said outer shell having a front element, through which incident radiation enters when in use (Nelson, window 112), and a rear element, through which electric wires come out (Nelson, 152), which are adapted to transport an electric signal when in use, and having a sequentially assembled modular structure and comprises the following components, adapted to be inserted, when assembled, in said outer shell: an ambient light absorber (Nelson, layers 120, 122), adapted to prevent light with a wavelength in the visible spectrum or in the near-UV spectrum from entering the device, and adapted to let said beta particles enter the device (Nelson, [0011]); a scintillator, positioned downstream of said absorber along the direction of said incident radiation and said beta particles, and adapted to receive said beta particles from said absorber and convert them into light (Nelson, layer 130); a light detector, positioned downstream of said scintillator along the direction of said beta particles and said light, said light detector being adapted to convert the light produced by said scintillator into an electric signal (Nelson, photomultiplier 150), said light detector being provided with electric wires exiting on the side opposite said first housing (Nelson, 152);and a cable holder, positioned downstream of said second housing along the direction of said light, and adapted to contain said electric wires and let them exit said device (Nelson, 152 – not shown but inferential given the location of 152).
Nelson does not explicitly teach a first housing (as distinct from the outer shell) for holding the scintillator and a second housing (further distinct from the outer shell and the first housing) for holding the photodetector.
Choquette teaches individual interior tubular housings for the respective detector components. (Choquette, Fig. 8 and [0068])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use such structural features as are necessary to secure the detector elements within the outer shell in order to prevent damage thereto. (Choquette, [0068])
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nelson and Choquette further teaches said ambient light absorber comprises: a thin-film layer of a material with a low atomic number and high absorbing power in the visible spectrum, or- an absorbing wall, positioned towards the outer wall of the device and comprising a layer of polyvinyl fluoride, and a reflecting wall, positioned towards the inner part of the device and comprising a layer of aluminized mylar or aluminium film. (Nelson [0011])
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nelson and Choquette further teaches said light detector (Fld) comprises:- a single Silicon Photo Multiplier (SiPM) or an array thereof; or - an APD scintillation light detector, or photodiodes, or a solid-state detector. (Nelson, [0018])
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nelson and Choquette further teaches said first housing (Flc) comprises a first inner cavity (Flc2), the shape of which is adapted to firmly house said scintillator (Fib). (Both Nelson and Choquette disclose housings closely fitted to the detector parts)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nelson and Choquette lacks explicit teaching of said first housing (Flc) comprises grooves (Flc1) on its outer edge facing said ambient light absorber (Fla).
However, the difference between the claimed invention and that of the prior art in this instance is merely a change in shape. Absent some change in function facilitated by the grooves on the outer edge of the first housing, it must be concluded that the change in shape results in a functional equivalent and therefore is a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Nelson and Choquette further teaches said second housing (Fle) comprises a second inner cavity (Flel), the shape of which is adapted to firmly house said light detector (Fld). (Both Nelson and Choquette disclose housings closely fitted to the detector parts)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Nelson and Choquette further teaches said cable holder (Flf) comprises internal through holes (Flfl) adapted to contain said electric wires (Flg), and at least one abutment wall (Flf2),wherein said internal through holes (Flfl) are formed on the abutment wall(Flf2),wherein said light detector (Fld) is positioned in abutment with said at least one abutment wall (Flf2). (Choquette, [0072], RS-232 communication connector through end of tube)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Nelson and Choquette, in teaching the complete device, necessarily teaches its basic method of construction.
Regarding claim 13, of the cited steps, at least the second step “making said first housing, said second housing, said cable holder either as one piece or as distinct pieces” is always true, and because the claim requires “one or more” of the claimed steps, the entire claim is therefore rejected on the same grounds as its parent claim.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Choquette and Feng (10,508,233)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nelson and Choquette lacks explicit teaching of the scintillator (Fib) comprises:- a solid P-terphenyl layer, or - a P-terphenyl layer obtained by deposition on substrate (e.g. sputtering); or - a commercial plastic material. (Feng, Col. 8 Lines 32-43 and Claim 7)
Feng teaches the scintillator (Fib) comprises:- a solid P-terphenyl layer, or - a P-terphenyl layer obtained by deposition on substrate (e.g. sputtering); or - a commercial plastic material. (Feng, Col. 8 Lines 32-43 and Claim 7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the scintillator materials of Feng with the device of Nelson and Choquette as the selection of a known scintillator material based on its known suitability for radiation detection.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Choquette and Cherry et al. (7,835,782)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nelson and Choquette lacks explicit teaching of a layer (S1) adapted to provide insulation against electromagnetic interference on the outer surface of one or more of said first housing (Flc), second housing (Fle), cable holder (Flf).
Cherry teaches the provision of an EMI shielding layer for the scintillator/detector assembly. (Cherry, Claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the EMI shield of Cherry in the device of Nelson and Choquette in order to protect the device in situations in which electromagnetic interference is expected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (and amended to resolve claim 12’s improper dependence).
Regarding claim 11, neither the combination of Nelson and Choquette nor other prior art of record teaches of making said front wall (Jia) from plastic material,- reducing the thickness of said front wall (Jia) by abrasion, for the purpose of limiting the absorption of beta radiation by said front wall;- periodically interrupting said abrasion to verify the light tightness of said front wall (Jia) by means of a sequentially assembled modular structure comprising a light detector and lacking a scintillator.
Regarding claim 12, interpreting claim 12 as being amended to depend from claim 11, further limitation of the abrasion step, which is itself not found in the prior art of record, is necessarily also allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN C GUNBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-3107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights