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 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 1-24 are 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 claims 1, 21 and 24, the term “an indication of energy distribution” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “indication” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Cambridge dictionary defines indication as “a sign that something exists, is true, or is likely to happen.” As such, an indication of energy distribution is not an energy distribution and is relative in terms of the amount of information the indication carries.
Claims 2-20 depend on claim 1 and claims 22-23 depend on claim 21 and are rejected for the same reason.
For the purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as reading “an energy distribution.” However, the specification fails to use such language and only refers to “an indication of an energy distribution.” Such an interpretation is meant to facilitate compact prosecution for the sake of relevant prior art and by no means acquiesces that such an amendment would not potentially constitute new matter.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the limitations “wherein the first source of radiation comprises 137Cs” and “wherein the second source of radiation comprises 90Sr” are indefinite because the limitation is unclear when infringement begins. The claimed method relates to determining the unknown location of a source of radiation, in such a case it is likely that the composition of such a source is unknown. The specification calls the example the method being used on a borehole to determine the location of ground radiation sources, for instance. In such a case, the user of the method is likely to be unaware of both the location and composition of any radiation source. Would infringement begin upon determining the location of the source or upon determining the composition? If the user performed all steps of the method and never made an effort to determine the source, would that infringe? If the composition was determined years after the position by a third party, when did infringement take place? These ambiguities render the claims indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 15-16, 19, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramsden et al. WO 2010/026363.
Regarding claim 1, Ramsden discloses a computer-implemented method of determining a location of a source of radiation within a medium (abstract; pg. 7 ln. 16-23), the method comprising: determining an indication of energy distribution of ionizing radiation incident upon a scintillation detector at each of a plurality of locations of the detector within the medium (pg. 18 ln. 12-16; spectral analysis and energy reconstruction); calibrating one of a plurality first models to the indication of energy distribution of ionizing radiation determined at each of the plurality of locations within the medium, wherein each first model comprises a first portion representative of a photopeak of ionizing radiation from a first radioactive source, to determine a photopeak portion of the energy distribution at each respective location (pg. 18 ln. 12-16; narrowing for a single energy of interest requires determining the photopeak of interest); and calibrating a second model comprising an asymmetric function to the photopeak portion of the energy distribution at the plurality of locations to determine the location of the source of radiation within the medium (pg. 18 ln. 1-16; the point source function is the asymmetric function which is fed the information from the spectral analysis and reconstruction algorithms; abstract; the entire purpose is to determine the location of the source of radiation).
Regarding claim 2, Ramsden discloses wherein each of the plurality of first models comprises a second portion representative of ionizing radiation incident upon the scintillation detector caused by a second source of radiation (pg. 18 ln. 1-16; contamination from known sources or background radiation).
Regarding claim 3, Ramsden discloses wherein the second portion is further representative of background radiation incident upon the scintillation detector (pg. 18 ln. 1-16; background isotopes).
Regarding claim 5, Ramsden discloses wherein the second portion is representative of bremsstrahlung photons caused by the second source of radiation incident upon the scintillation detector (pg. 18 ln. 1-16; contamination from known sources or background radiation).
Regarding claim 6, Ramsden discloses wherein the first portion comprises a Gaussian distribution representative of the photopeak of ionizing radiation from the first radioactive source (pg. 18 ln. 1-16; figs. 6-7).
Regarding claim 7, Ramsden discloses wherein the first portion G(x) is of a form:
G
x
=
A
e
x
-
μ
2
2
σ
2
wherein A is amplitude of a Gaussian peak, x is indicative of energy,
μ
is centroid of the Gaussian peak, and
σ
is standard deviation of the Gaussian peak (pg. 18 ln. 1-16; figs. 6-7; the equation of the claim is the common equation for a Gaussian distribution and would be envisioned by one of ordinary skill in the art upon a reading of Ramsden).
Regarding claim 10, Ramsden discloses wherein calibrating one of the plurality first models comprises calibrating one or more variables associated with a Gaussian peak of the model to data indicative of the energy distribution of ionizing radiation at the respective location within the medium in dependence on a fitting algorithm (pg. 18 ln. 1-16; figs. 6-7; energy reconstruction of the gaussian energy distribution of fig. 6 would commonly be known to include as fitting algorithm); optionally the fitting algorithm is a least-squares minimization algorithm.
Regarding claim 15, Ramsden discloses wherein calibrating the second model comprises calibrating one or more variables associated with the asymmetric function to the photopeak portion of the energy distribution at the plurality of locations in dependence on a fitting algorithm (pg. 18 ln. 1-16; figs. 6-7); optionally the fitting algorithm is a least-squares minimization algorithm.
Regarding claim 16, Ramsden discloses comprising calibrating a plurality first models to respective indications of energy distributions of ionizing radiation determined to determine a photopeak portion of the energy distribution at each respective location within the medium (pg. 18 ln. 1-16).
Regarding claim 19, Ramsden discloses comprising outputting an indication of the location of the source of radiation within the medium (abstract; the entire purpose is to determine the location of the source of radiation and outputting the result is implied); optionally the indication is output on a display device.
Regarding claim 21, Ramsden discloses an apparatus for determining a location of a source of radiation within a medium (abstract), the apparatus comprising: an interface for receiving data indicative of an indication of energy distribution of ionizing radiation incident upon a scintillation detector at each of a plurality of locations of the detector within the medium (pg. 18 ln. 12-16; spectral analysis and energy reconstruction; the software method implies an interface to receive the data to perform the method); a processor (pg. 18 ln. 1-16; executing software analysis implies a processor an memory to execute said software); and a memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (pg. 18 ln. 1-16; executing software analysis implies a processor an memory to execute said software): calibrate one of a plurality first models to the indication of energy distribution of ionizing radiation determined at each of the plurality of locations within the medium, wherein each model comprises a first portion representative of a photopeak of ionizing radiation from a first radioactive source, to determine a photopeak portion of the energy distribution at each respective location (pg. 18 ln. 12-16; narrowing for a single energy of interest requires determining the photopeak of interest); and calibrate a second model comprising an asymmetric function to the photopeak portion of the energy distribution at the plurality of locations to determine the location of the source of radiation within the medium (pg. 18 ln. 1-16; the point source function is the asymmetric function which is fed the information from the spectral analysis and reconstruction algorithms; abstract; the entire purpose is to determine the location of the source of radiation).
Regarding claim 22, Ramsden discloses a system comprising the apparatus of claim 21 (see claim 21) and a scintillation detector (16; pg. 7 ln. 13-15) arranged to, in use, provide an indication of energy distribution of ionizing radiation incident thereon (figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 23, comprising an actuator arranged to control a location of the scintillation detector within the medium in dependence on a control signal from the apparatus (pg. 10 ln. 13-16; motor); optionally the actuator comprises a winch.
Regarding claim 24, Ramsden discloses at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with instruction which, when executed by at least one processor of a system, to determine a location of a source of radiation within a medium (abstract; pg. 7 ln. 16-23) at least in part by: determining an indication of energy distribution of ionizing radiation incident upon a scintillation detector at each of a plurality of locations of the detector within the medium (pg. 18 ln. 12-16; spectral analysis and energy reconstruction);calibrating one of a plurality first models to the indication of energy distribution of ionizing radiation determined at each of the plurality of locations within the medium, wherein each first model comprises a first portion representative of a photopeak of ionizing radiation from a first radioactive source, to determine a photopeak portion of the energy distribution at each respective location (pg. 18 ln. 12-16; narrowing for a single energy of interest requires determining the photopeak of interest); and calibrating a second model comprising an asymmetric function to the photopeak portion of the energy distribution at the plurality of locations to determine the location of the source of radiation within the medium (pg. 18 ln. 1-16; the point source function is the asymmetric function which is fed the information from the spectral analysis and reconstruction algorithms; abstract; the entire purpose is to determine the location of the source of radiation).
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 4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsden et al. WO 2010/026363.
Regarding claim 4, Ramsden discloses the claimed invention except the second portion is representative of background radiation or a second contaminating source (pg. 18 ln. 1-16) not scattered radiation from the first source of radiation incident upon the scintillation detector. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have wherein the second portion is further representative of scattered radiation from the first source of radiation incident upon the scintillation detector since it was common knowledge in the art that scattered radiation can degrade image quality and that the method of Ramsden is capable of correcting such an issue.
Regarding claim 8, Ramsden discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the second portion comprises a step function. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have wherein the second portion comprises a step function since the use of step functions are well known in the art and one of ordinary skill would be able to select an appropriate function for their use-case.
Regarding claim 9, Ramsden discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the second portion comprises a tail function. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have wherein the second portion comprises a tail function since the use of tail functions are well known in the art and one of ordinary skill would be able to select an appropriate function for their use-case.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsden et al. WO 2010/026363 in view of Beddow WO 2015/181268.
Regarding claim 20, Ramsden fails to teach comprising controlling an excavator to excavate to the location of the source of radiation.
Beddow teaches an excavator (206) with a system and method for assessing radiation material (figs. 1-2; abstract) for the purpose of disposing of the material and improving safety.
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 controlling an excavator to excavate to the location of the source of radiation as taught by Beddow with the method of Ramsden for the purpose of improving the disposal efficiency thereby improving safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest wherein the asymmetric function is skewed towards greater detections of incident radiation at lower depth, along with other claim limitations.
Ramsden et al. WO 2010/026363 in view of Beddow WO 2015/181268, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest "wherein the asymmetric function is skewed towards greater detections of incident radiation at lower depth," along with other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest wherein the asymmetric function comprises a Moffat distribution, along with other claim limitations.
Ramsden et al. WO 2010/026363 in view of Beddow WO 2015/181268, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest "wherein the asymmetric function comprises a Moffat distribution," along with other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest wherein the asymmetric function represents a peak and is of a form:
f
2
=
A
1
+
x
-
μ
2
t
x
2
-
β
t
x
=
2
w
1
+
e
γ
(
x
-
x
0
)
wherein A is an amplitude of the peak,
β
is a width of tails of the peak, x is a depth of the detector,
μ
is the location of the source of radiation within the medium,
γ
is a value indicative of skewness of the peak, w is indicative of a half-width-half-maximum of the peak, along with other claim limitations.
Ramsden et al. WO 2010/026363 in view of Beddow WO 2015/181268, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest "wherein the asymmetric function represents a peak and is of a form:
f
2
=
A
1
+
x
-
μ
2
t
x
2
-
β
t
x
=
2
w
1
+
e
γ
(
x
-
x
0
)
wherein A is an amplitude of the peak,
β
is a width of tails of the peak, x is a depth of the detector,
μ
is the location of the source of radiation within the medium,
γ
is a value indicative of skewness of the peak, w is indicative of a half-width-half-maximum of the peak," along with other claim limitations.
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
