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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11 December 2025.
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.
Claim(s) 10, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(a) as being anticipated by Nomura et al. (US 2011/0155917 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Nomura discloses: a radiation imaging apparatus (par. [0007]) in which a scintillator (scintillator layer, 2) and a sensor substrate (sensor panel, 4) comprising a main surface with a plurality of pixels (substrate 4b with pixel region 4a, par. [0046]) arranged thereon are bonded by a bonding member (adhesive, 5), wherein in an orthogonal projection with respect to the main surface, a bubble extending over a first pixel and an adjacent pixel adjacent to the first pixel does not exist in the bonding member (“by gradually bonding the scintillator panel to the sensor panel 4 from one end to the other end thereof, bubbles are prevented from being generated in a contact region therebetween”, par. [0046]).
With respect to claim 11, Nomura discloses at least a first, second, and third pixel (“many pixels”, par. [0046]), wherein a bubble extending over a first pixel and adjacent pixels does not exist in the bonding member (“by gradually bonding the scintillator panel to the sensor panel 4 from one end to the other end thereof, bubbles are prevented from being generated in a contact region therebetween”, par. [0046]).
With respect to claim 14, Nomura discloses a signal processor configured to process a signal output from the radiation imaging apparatus (par. [0048]).
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujioka et al. (WO 2019/155813, translation enclosed).
With respect to claim 10, Fujioka discloses: a radiation imaging apparatus in which a scintillator (1) and a sensor substrate comprising a main surface with a plurality of pixels arranged thereon (2, par. [0058]) are bonded by a bonding member (adhesive, par. [0052]), wherein in an orthogonal projection with respect to the main surface, a bubble extending over a first pixel and an adjacent pixel adjacent to the first pixel does not exist in the bonding member (reduced-pressure environment is used to prevent bubbles, par. [0055]).
With respect to claims 11-13, Fujioka discloses an array of pixel elements, wherein an inner element is surrounded by eight other pixels (shown in Fig. 4, array shown in element 2). Fujioka also describes preventing bubbles between the elements (reduced-pressure environment is used to prevent bubbles, par. [0055]).
With respect to claim 14, Fujioka discloses a signal processor configured to process a signal output from the radiation imaging apparatus (implicitly disclosed, par. [0022], as electric signal is provided as an output).
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.
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.
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) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura.
With respect to claims 12 and 13, Nomura discloses an array comprising “many pixels” (par. [0046]) which correspond to scintillator elements which are shown in a two-dimensional arrangement (see Figures 4A and 4B). Assuming, in arguendo, that the statement of “many pixels” and the arrangements shown in Fig. 4A and 4B do not encompass the claimed fourth through ninth pixels, such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R GAWORECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-6 PM.
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.
/MARK R GAWORECKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 6 January 2026