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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08 January, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 3-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ishida JP 2011/128085.
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 and 3-8 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “the first protective layer, the second protective layer, and the third protective layer are each configured by one or more layers” [emphasis added], and the claim also recites “wherein the number of layers of the first protective layer is less than a number of layers than a number of layers of the third protective layer” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation (the first range being the third protective layer being one or more layers and the second range requiring it have a greater number of layers than the first protective layer. This is more narrow because under the second range the third protective layer cannot have one layer). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. US 2007/0051896 in view of Ishida JP 2011/128085.
Regarding claim 1, Okada teaches a radiation imaging apparatus (figs. 1, 4) in which a sensor substrate (101, 102) and a scintillator (130) are bonded by a bonding member (120), the scintillator comprising: a first surface opposing the sensor substrate via the bonding member (downward surface of 130) and covered by a first protective layer (fig. 1 104; fig. 4 114); a second surface disposed on an opposite side of the first surface (upward surface of 130) and covered by a second protective layer (fig. 1 114, 112, 118; fig. 4 115); and a third surface connecting the first surface and the second surface (side surface of 130) and covered by a third protective layer (para. 0104 “Moreover, the side surface of the second scintillator layer 132 is coated with the protective layer 114, or the side surfaces of the first scintillator layer 131, intermediate layer 138, and second scintillator layer 132 are collectively coated, especially Parylene is used as the material” the third protective film may be integral to 114 or a separate layer), wherein the first protective layer, the second protective layer, and the third protective layer are each configured by one or more layers (In fig. 1 the second surface consists of 3 layers and the first and third surface consist of 1 layer. In fig. 4 all of the protective surfaces consist of at least 1 layer.), wherein a number of layers of the first protective layer is less than or equal to respective numbers of layers of the second protective layer (In fig. 1 the second surface consists of 3 layers and the first and third surface consist of 1 layer), and wherein an outermost layer of the third protective layer is integrated with the first protective layer or the second protective layer (fig. 1; the outermost layer of the third protective layer 114 is integrated with the second protective layer 114, 112, 118; para. 0104).
Okada fails to teach wherein the number of layers of the first protective layer is less than a number of layers of the third protective layer.
Ishida teaches the benefits and costs of using single layer and multilayer protective layers (pg. 4 para. 3). Teaching that increased lamination in multilayer protective layers increases moisture resistance at the tradeoff of layer thickness which may reduce resolution (pg. 4 para. 3).
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 wherein the number of layers of the first protective layer is less than a number of layers of the third protective layer as taught by Ishida in the radiation imaging apparatus of Okada for the purpose of increased moisture resistance.
Regarding claim 3, Okada does not explicitly disclose wherein a film thickness of the first protective layer is less than or equal to respective film thicknesses of the second protective layer and the third protective layer, however, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in size has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). A change in size is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of size is not of patentable significance
Regarding claim 4, Okada does not explicitly disclose wherein a film thickness of the first protective layer is less than a film thickness of the third protective layer er, however, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in size has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). A change in size is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of size is not of patentable significance
Regarding claim 5, Okada discloses wherein layers constituting a protective layer of each of the first protective layer, the second protective layer, and the third protective layer include the same material (para. 0104, 0111, 115; all three protective layers may be made of, for example, Parylene).
Regarding claim 6, Okada teaches wherein the scintillator includes a columnar crystal (claim 1, para. 0107), and wherein, in the third protective layer, a film thickness of a layer contacting the scintillator is less than or equal to 1/50 of a column diameter of the columnar crystal (para. 0107-0108; the column diameter is given to be 300µm and the third protective layer thickness is 15µm. Although the protective layer is not the 6µm given by a 1/50 ratio, the proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties; MPEP 2144.05.I.).
Regarding claim 7, Okada discloses wherein the scintillator includes an alkali metal halide compound (para. 0046).
Regarding claim 8, in at least figure 10 Okada discloses a radiation imaging system comprising (fig. 10): the radiation imaging apparatus according to claim 1 (see Claim 1); and a signal processing unit configured to process a signal outputted from the radiation imaging apparatus (6070; para. 0159).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 13-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 9 and 13-16, the allowable subject matter was disclosed in a prior office action dated 14 November, 2025.
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
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884