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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hughes (GB 2398381 A; cited in the IDS filed on 2/7/25).
With respect to independent claim 1, Hughes teaches in Fig. 1 a standalone apparatus for characterising potentially contaminated waste 3, comprising:
a first module 19 (or 21) comprising a first surface as shown in Fig. 1 and at least one radiation detector 37 (or 23) arranged to capture data representative of a first property of an object see p. 12, lines 1 – 3; by detecting dose, Hughes can determine amount of radioactive materials; see p. 2, the fourth paragraph;
a second module 21 (or 19) comprising at least one spectroscopic detector 23 (or 37) arranged to capture data representative of a second property isotropic markup of the waste on p. 11, the fourth paragraph of the object;
an open volume 5 as shown in Fig. 1 between the first surface and the second module for receiving the object,
wherein the first surface is arranged between the at least one radiation detector 37 and the open volume 5; and a memory CPU 29 and processing electronics 27 and/or transmitter arranged to store and/or transmit the captured data representative of the first and/or second property of the object;
wherein the stored or transmitted data representative of the first and/or second property of the object is used for categorising the object see p. 11, the fourth paragraph.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Hughes teaches wherein the first property is related to a radioactivity level dosimeter 37 of the object and the second property is related to a material composition see p. 11, the fourth paragraph of the object.
With respect to dependent claim 13, as discussed above Hughes teaches in Fig. 1 wherein the at least one radiation detector of the first module is arranged to capture data representative of a first property of the object, when the object is inserted within the open volume between the first surface and the second module, proximal to the first module and/or wherein the at least one spectroscopic detector of the second module is arranged to capture data representative of a second property of the object, when the object is inserted within the open volume between the first surface and the second module, proximal to the second module.
With respect to dependent claim 15, Hughes teaches in Fig. 1 wherein the at least one spectroscopic detector faces toward the first surface and/or wherein the first module comprises an open top shielded container to shield the at least one radiation detector from its sides and below.
With respect to dependent claim 17, Hughes is silent with wherein the second module 19 is more compact than the first module 21. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to dependent claim 22, Hughes teaches wherein the first module comprises a Pu/Am radiation detector for capturing data representative of a Plutonium and Americium ratio and/or wherein the second module comprises an alpha-beta radiation detector in the first paragraph on p. 6.
With respect to dependent claim 24, Hughes teaches in the fourth paragraph on p. 11 wherein the spectroscopic detector uses atomic emission spectroscopy to capture a spectrum for use in identifying one or more chemical elements that make up the object and/or wherein the spectroscopic detector comprises an active spectroscopic detector.
With respect to dependent claim 26, Hughes teaches wherein the second module comprises an aperture 25 or opening through which a radiation beam can be transmitted.
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.
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) 3 – 4, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes.
The teaching of Hughes has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Hughes is silent with wherein the second module is spaced above the first module and/or wherein the first surface is arranged to face upwards.
However, the arrangement in claim 3 would be within the ordinary skilled art as an engineering design choice. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 4, Hughes is silent with wherein the second module is supported by a support element extending between the first module and the second module, wherein the support element extends partially or entirely along an edge of each of the first module and the second module and/or wherein a distance between the first surface and the second module is fixed by the support element and/or wherein the first module and the second module are separated with a spacing of between 0.3m and 2m.
However, the elements cited in claim 4 would be within the ordinary skilled art as an engineering design choice. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 7, the limitation of “wherein the apparatus comprises one or more supports for raising the first surface away from a floor and/or wherein the first surface comprises a material that is transparent to gamma radiation and/or a relatively flat portion” would be within the ordinary skilled art as an engineering design choice. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 11, Hughes teaches in the fourth paragraph on p. 11 wherein the stored or transmitted data representative of the first and/or second property of the object is used to determine the radioactivity of the object per given mass but is silent with wherein the first module comprises a mass balance and the first surface is supported by said mass balance. However, this limitation of “wherein the first module comprises a mass balance and the first surface is supported by said mass balance” would be within ordinary skilled art as an engineering design choice. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes and further in view of Akers (US 2014/0299757 A1).
The teaching of Hughes has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 18, Hughes teaches wherein the at least one radiation detector of the first module may comprises a plurality of gamma detector elements 23 in Fig. 1 arranged in an array, but is silent with wherein each gamma detector element comprises a Cadmium Zinc Telluride detector and/or wherein each gamma detector element comprises a connection to a respective multi-channel analyser.
In paragraph [0033], Akers, a pertinent art, teaches CZT detector. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Hughes in order to employ a known detector. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes and further in view of Coleman (US 2012/0112099 A1)
The teaching of Hughes has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 21, Hughes teaches collimator to detectors in the sixth paragraph on p. 10, but is silent with wherein the first module comprises a collimating shutter arranged to cover the field of view of the at least one radiation detector when in a closed configuration and to uncover the field of view of the at least one radiation detector when in an open configuration.
In paragraph [0024], Coleman, a pertinent art, teaches a collimator shutter. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Hughes in order to pin-point the location of radioactive materials. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 28 - 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes and further in view of Smith (US 2010/0295679 A1)
The teaching of Hughes has been discussed above.
With respect to independent claim 28, as discussed above Hughes teaches in Fig. 1 system for characterising and categorising potentially contaminated waste, comprising:
a standalone apparatus for characterising potentially contaminated waste, comprising:
a first module comprising a first surface and at least one radiation detector configured to capture data representative of a first property of an object;
a second module comprising at least one spectroscopic detector configured to capture data representative of a second property of the object;
an open volume between the first surface and the second module for receiving the object,
wherein the first surface is arranged between the at least one radiation detector and the open volume;
a memory and/or or transmitter for storing and/or transmitting the captured data representative of the first and/or second property of the object, wherein the stored or transmitted data representative of the first and/or second property of the object is used for associating the object with a category; but is silent with a sorting module arranged to sort the object into said category.
Smith, a pertinent art, teaches a sorting module in paragraph [0019]. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Hughes in order to sort out drums into desired directions after determining the properties in drums. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 29, Hughes should have in Fig. 1 a mechanism arranged to: obtain the object from a source location, the source location being separate to and spaced from the standalone apparatus; move via 9 the object and insert the object into the open volume 5 between the first surface and the second module of the standalone apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 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, 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.
KIHO KIM, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights