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 § 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 1, 4-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for wherein the first ionizing radiation comprises x-rays, gamma rays, or a combination of x-rays and gamma rays and the second ionizing radiation comprises neutrons (claim 2); or wherein the first ionizing radiation comprises neutrons and the second ionizing radiation comprises x-rays, gamma rays, or a combination of x-rays and gamma rays (claim 3), does not reasonably provide enablement for the broad scope of first and second “ionizing radiation.” The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Before explaining the Examiner’s analysis of enablement, the examiner has selected the definition of “ionizing radiation” as being any radiation with enough energy to ionize atoms or molecules. For the Examiner’s analysis of whether there is lack of enablement for the entire scope of "ionizing radiation", the following factors, were considered.
(1) The breadth (i.e., scope) of the claims: The relevant concern is whether the scope of enablement in the disclosure is commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. In the disclosure, examples providing enablement included wherein the first ionizing radiation comprises x-rays, gamma rays, or a combination of x-rays and gamma rays and the second ionizing radiation comprises neutrons (claim 2); or wherein the first ionizing radiation comprises neutrons and the second ionizing radiation comprises x-rays, gamma rays, or a combination of x-rays and gamma rays (claim 3). However, the scope of protection sought by the claims is "ionizing radiation" which includes any radiation with enough energy to ionize atoms or molecules. The disclosure did not enable one to make and/or use all radiations in the broad scope of the claimed invention, such as radiation with energy greater than 1 QeV, which would require undue experimentation to make and/or use since these devices do not exist.
(2) The nature of the invention: The subject matter to which the claimed invention recites is “ionizing radiation” in general, which can include any radiation with enough energy to ionize atoms or molecules. However, the subject matter to which the subject matter pertains in the specification is wherein the first ionizing radiation comprises x-rays, gamma rays, or a combination of x-rays and gamma rays and the second ionizing radiation comprises neutrons (claim 2); or wherein the first ionizing radiation comprises neutrons and the second ionizing radiation comprises x-rays, gamma rays, or a combination of x-rays and gamma rays (claim 3).
(3) The state of the prior art: One skilled in the art would have known, at the time of the application was filed, about the subject matter (i.e., wherein the first ionizing radiation comprises x-rays, gamma rays, or a combination of x-rays and gamma rays and the second ionizing radiation comprises neutrons (claim 2); or wherein the first ionizing radiation comprises neutrons and the second ionizing radiation comprises x-rays, gamma rays, or a combination of x-rays and gamma rays (claim 3)) to which the invention pertains. However, the state of the prior art does not have any direction or guidance with regard to all radiations in the broad scope of "ionizing radiation", such as radiation with energy greater than 1 QeV, which would require undue experimentation to make, since those devices do not exist.
(4) The level of one of ordinary skill: The level of one of ordinary skill, would have known, at the time of the application was filed, how to practice the subject matter (i.e., wherein the first ionizing radiation comprises x-rays, gamma rays, or a combination of x-rays and gamma rays and the second ionizing radiation comprises neutrons (claim 2); or wherein the first ionizing radiation comprises neutrons and the second ionizing radiation comprises x-rays, gamma rays, or a combination of x-rays and gamma rays (claim 3)) to which the invention pertains. However, one of ordinary skill would not know how to make and/or use all radiations in the broad scope of "ionizing radiation", such as radiation with energy greater than 1 QeV, since those devices do not exist and since the interaction of these other radiations would not produce outputs that could be used to practice the claimed invention.
(5) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: The inventor provided direction on how to make and/or use the invention with regard to wherein the first ionizing radiation comprises x-rays, gamma rays, or a combination of x-rays and gamma rays and the second ionizing radiation comprises neutrons (claim 2); or wherein the first ionizing radiation comprises neutrons and the second ionizing radiation comprises x-rays, gamma rays, or a combination of x-rays and gamma rays (claim 3). However, there is no direction or guidance with regard to all radiations in the broad scope of "ionizing radiation", such as radiation with energy greater than 1 QeV, which would require undue experimentation to make and/or use since those devices do not exist.
(6) The existence of working examples: The disclosure does provide a working example wherein the first ionizing radiation comprises x-rays, gamma rays, or a combination of x-rays and gamma rays and the second ionizing radiation comprises neutrons (claim 2); or wherein the first ionizing radiation comprises neutrons and the second ionizing radiation comprises x-rays, gamma rays, or a combination of x-rays and gamma rays (claim 3). Therefore, that is enough to preclude a rejection which states that nothing is enabled. However, a rejection stating that enablement is limited to a particular scope is appropriate, since there are no working examples provided for radiations that do not have an existing detecting device, such as devices detecting radiation with energy greater than 1 QeV.
(7) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: Since the scope of the claimed invention includes all ionizing radiation, there are devices for various radiations that do not exist, such as radiation with energy greater than 1 QeV. Since these types of detection devices do not exist, it would require undue experimentation to make such an invention commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention.
Based on the factors above, the Examiner concludes that the disclosure’s scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art is not commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. While the specification is enabling for wherein the first ionizing radiation comprises x-rays, gamma rays, or a combination of x-rays and gamma rays and the second ionizing radiation comprises neutrons (claim 2); or wherein the first ionizing radiation comprises neutrons and the second ionizing radiation comprises x-rays, gamma rays, or a combination of x-rays and gamma rays (claim 3), the specification does not enable one to make and/or use the claimed invention with other types of ionizing radiation, such as radiation with energy greater than 1 QeV, which would require undue experimentation to make and/or use since such detection devices do not exist. Therefore, the claims are rejected for scope of enablement issues.
This rejection may be obviated by incorporating the claim language of claims 2 or 3 into independent claim 1 and by incorporating the claim language of claims 14 or 15 into independent claim 13. Dependent claims 4-12 and 16-20 are rejected for the above reason by virtue of their claim dependency.
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, 6-7, 13, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He et al. (CN 110007333 A; hereinafter He).
Regarding claim 1, He discloses an imaging system comprising: an imaging detector (par. 29: X-ray image sensor); an object region (being imaged); and a scintillator stack comprising a first scintillator (120) and a second scintillator (110) positioned between the imaging detector (100) and the object region along an imaging pathway, wherein: the first scintillator (120) is positioned upstream the second scintillator (110) along the imaging pathway (to 100) and is configured to convert a first ionizing radiation into first photons comprising a first wavelength (from 120) ; and the second scintillator (110) is configured to convert a second ionizing radiation into second photons comprising a second wavelength (from 110) and comprises a higher transmittance percentage at the second wavelength than the first scintillator (pars. 42-44: the first scintillation crystal layer 110 of the visible light transmittance of 1% to 99%; the first scintillation crystal layer 110 of the visible light transmission rate is greater than the second scintillation crystal layer 120 of the visible light transmittance).
Regarding claim 6, He discloses wherein the first wavelength and the second wavelength differ by at least 10 nm (pars. 38-39 and 46-47; due to the different materials of the first and second scintillators).
Regarding claim 7, He discloses wherein the first scintillator is in direct contact with the second scintillator (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, He discloses a method comprising: directing a first ionizing radiation through an object region onto a scintillator stack comprising a first scintillator (120) and a second scintillator (110), wherein: the first scintillator (120) is positioned upstream the second scintillator (110); and a target object is positioned in the object region (above 120); converting the first ionizing radiation into first photons comprising a first wavelength at the first scintillator (120), wherein the first photons propagate from the first scintillator, through the second scintillator (110), and toward an imaging detector (100); directing a second ionizing radiation through the object region onto the scintillator stack; and converting the second ionizing radiation into second photons comprising a second wavelength at the second scintillator (110), wherein: the second photons propagate from the second scintillator toward the imaging detector (100); and the second scintillator comprises a higher transmittance percentage at the second wavelength than the first scintillator (pars. 42-44: the first scintillation crystal layer 110 of the visible light transmittance of 1% to 99%; the first scintillation crystal layer 110 of the visible light transmission rate is greater than the second scintillation crystal layer 120 of the visible light transmittance).
Regarding claim 17, He discloses generating, using the imaging detector (par. 29: X-ray image sensor), one or more images of the target object based on the first photons and the second photons (from 110 and 120), wherein the one or more images of the target object comprise a first image based on the first photons (from 120) and a second image based on the second photons (from 110).
Regarding claim 18, He discloses wherein the first wavelength and the second wavelength differ by at least 10 nm (pars. 38-39 and 46-47; due to the different materials of the first and second scintillators).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Qian et al. (CN 114236599 A; hereinafter Qian).
He discloses claims 1 and 13.
However, He fails to disclose wherein the first ionizing radiation comprises x-rays, gamma rays, or a combination of x-rays and gamma rays and the second ionizing radiation comprises neutrons.
Qian teaches wherein the first ionizing radiation comprises x-rays, gamma rays, or a combination of x-rays and gamma rays (for gamma sensitive layer 6022) and the second ionizing radiation comprises neutrons (for neutron sensitive layer 6024).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify He with the teaching of Qian, since these detector types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to substitute. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for better safety detection (Qian: par. 2).
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Kniss et al. (US 2007/0029493; hereinafter Kniss).
He discloses claims 1 and 13.
However, He fails to disclose wherein the first ionizing radiation comprises neutrons and the second ionizing radiation comprises x-rays, gamma rays, or a combination of x-rays and gamma rays.
Kniss teaches wherein the first ionizing radiation comprises neutrons (for 14) and the second ionizing radiation comprises x-rays, gamma rays, or a combination of x-rays and gamma rays (for 12).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify He with the teaching of Kniss, since these detector types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to substitute. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for better detecting objects of interest (Kniss: par. 1).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as applied to claims 1 and 13 above.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, He discloses claims 1 and 13. He further discloses wherein the second scintillator comprises a transmittance percentage at the second wavelength that is greater than the transmittance percentage of the first scintillator at the second wavelength (pars. 42-44; the first scintillation crystal layer 110 of the visible light transmittance of 1% to 99%; the first scintillation crystal layer 110 of the visible light transmission rate is greater than the second scintillation crystal layer 120 of the visible light transmittance).
However, He fails to disclose at least 10% greater.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify He with the percentage difference, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (He: pars. 42-44), discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for increasing detector sensitivity (He: abstract).
Regarding claim 5, He discloses claim 1. He further discloses wherein the first scintillator comprises a lower transmittance percentage at the second wavelength (pars. 42-44; with the second scintillator transmittance being low) and the second scintillator comprises a transmittance percentage of 90% or more at the second wavelength (pars. 42-44; the first scintillation crystal layer 110 of the visible light transmittance of 1% to 99%; the first scintillation crystal layer 110 of the visible light transmission rate is greater than the second scintillation crystal layer 120 of the visible light transmittance).
However, He fails to disclose a transmittance percentage of 15% or less.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify He with the percentage, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (He: pars. 42-44), discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for increasing detector sensitivity (He: abstract).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yun et al. (US 2005/0226376; hereinafter Yun).
He discloses claim 1.
However, He fails to disclose wherein the second scintillator is thicker than the first scintillator and a thickness ratio of the second scintillator to the first scintillator is 20:1 or greater.
Yun teaches wherein the second scintillator is thicker than the first scintillator and a thickness ratio of the second scintillator to the first scintillator is 20:1 or greater (claims 37-38).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify He with the teaching of Yun, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Yun: claims 37-38), discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for increasing detector sensitivity (Yun: par. 34).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of La Riviere (US 2014/0301528; hereinafter Riviere).
Regarding claim 9, He discloses claim 1.
However, He fails to disclose an optical filter positioned along the imaging pathway between the scintillator stack and the imaging detector, wherein the optical filter is configured to selectively block the first photons or the second photons.
Riviere teaches an optical filter (612) positioned along the imaging pathway between the scintillator stack (608) and the imaging detector (614/616), wherein the optical filter is configured to selectively block the first photons or the second photons (with 612).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify He with the teaching of Riviere, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for more differentiation (Riviere: abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Riviere teaches wherein: the imaging detector is a first imaging detector (614) and the imaging system further comprises a second imaging detector (616); and the optical filter comprises a dichroic mirror (612) configured to permit transmission of the first photons through the dichroic mirror toward the first imaging detector (614) and reflect the second photons toward the second imaging detector (616).
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cantu et al. (US 2006/0227933; hereinafter Cantu).
Regarding claim 9, He discloses claim 1.
However, He fails to disclose an optical filter positioned along the imaging pathway between the scintillator stack and the imaging detector, wherein the optical filter is configured to selectively block the first photons or the second photons.
Cantu teaches an optical filter (34) positioned along the imaging pathway between the scintillator stack (36) and the imaging detector (32), wherein the optical filter is configured to selectively block the first photons or the second photons (with 35/37).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify He with the teaching of Cantu, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for a simpler system (Cantu: par. 12).
Regarding claim 11, Cantu teaches wherein: the imaging detector comprises a color camera having two or more sets of detector sensor pixels (32) and each set of detector sensor pixels is sensitive to a different wavelength range (for 35/37); a first set of detector sensor pixels is sensitive to a first wavelength range and the first wavelength is within the first wavelength range (with 35); and a second set of detector sensor pixels is sensitive to a second wavelength range and the second wavelength is within the second wavelength range (with 37).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Homma et al. (US 2005/0017189; hereinafter Homma).
He discloses claim 1.
However, He fails to disclose wherein the first scintillator comprises a zinc sulfide scintillator doped with copper.
Homma teaches wherein the first scintillator comprises a zinc sulfide scintillator doped with copper (par. 72).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify He with the teaching of Homma, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for improving luminance (Homma: par. 71).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kurudirek et al. (“A simple method to determine effective atomic numbers of some compounds for multi-energetic photons”; hereinafter Kurudirek).
Regarding claim 19, He discloses claim 13.
However, He fails to disclose determining a first attenuation coefficient of the target object based on the first photons and a second attenuation coefficient of the target object based on the second photons; and comparing the first attenuation coefficient and the second attenuation coefficient to determine one or more material properties of the target object.
Kurudirek teaches determining a first attenuation coefficient of the target object based on the first photons and a second attenuation coefficient of the target object based on the second photons; and comparing the first attenuation coefficient and the second attenuation coefficient to determine one or more material properties of the target object (abstract; section 3: theory).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify He with the teaching of Kurudirek, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for simplifying analysis (Kurudirek: title and abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Kurudirek teaches wherein at least one of the one or more material properties is an approximate effective atomic number of the target object (abstract; section 3: theory).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chih-Cheng Kao whose telephone number is (571)272-2492. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
/Chih-Cheng Kao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights