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 Amendment
An amendment responsive to the non-final Office Action dated August 12, 2025 was submitted on November 12, 2025. Claims 1, 4, 12, 15 and 19 were amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The amendments to claim 15 have overcome the objection to this claim (¶ 2 of the Office Action). This claim objection has therefore been withdrawn.
The amendments to claim 4 have overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of claims 4-8 (¶¶ 4-6 of the Office Action). These rejections have therefore been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the prior art rejections of claims 1-20 (¶¶ 10-35 of the Office Action) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. These rejections have therefore been maintained as detailed below. The limitations added to claims 1 and 19 have also been addressed below.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 10-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0299062 A1) in view of Reitz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0078972 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ng discloses a method for producing a component, the method comprising: providing a first substrate layer and a second substrate layer (Abstract of Ng, method for the lamination of first and second substrates); stacking the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer (Abstract of Ng, first substrate placed over second substrate) using a holding apparatus configured to positionally fix the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer relative to each other (Abstract of Ng, laminating apparatus includes first and second substrate holders operative to support the first and second substrates and a positioning mechanism coupled to the first and/or second substrate holders to align the substrates relative to one another), wherein a material bonding layer is arranged between the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer ([0022] of Ng, adhesive resin dispensed onto one of the substrates); material-to-material bonding of the first substrate layer to the second substrate layer through hardening ([0025] of Ng, adhesive resin cured by curing device); providing the component that comprises the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer, which are bonded to one another in a material-to-material manner via the material bonding layer (Abstract of Ng, method for the lamination of first and second substrates; [0022] of Ng, adhesive resin dispensed onto one of the substrates to laminate the substrates together), which comprises a material bonding, wherein the hardening comprises a first hardening step and a second hardening step ([0022]-[0023] of Ng, method comprises a pre-lamination step a wherein the substrates are partially bonded followed by a full lamination step wherein the substrates are fully bonded), and wherein a first part area of the material bonding layer is hardened in the first hardening step ([0029] of Ng, portion of the resin area cured by the curing device in pre-lamination step, and a second part area of the material bonding layer is hardened in the second hardening step ([0023] of Ng, substrates fully bonded in full lamination step).
Ng does not specifically disclose that the method is for producing a component for a medical imaging device. Reitz, however, discloses a method of manufacturing a collimator module for a tomography device (Abstract of Reitz). The method comprises aligning collimator layers relative to one another and gluing the layers together (Abstract of Reitz). According to Reitz, the aligned layers reduce the influence of scattered radiation on the x-ray detector ([0004] of Reitz). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use collimator layers in the method of Ng. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to produce a collimator module for a tomography device which reduces the influence of scattered radiation on the x-ray detector of the tomography device bas taught by Reitz ([0004] of Reitz).
Regarding claim 2, Reitz discloses that the component for the medical imaging device is a radiation-guidance component for the medical imaging device (Abstract of Reitz, component is a collimator module for a tomography device).
Regarding claim 3, Reitz discloses that the first substrate layer has a first cutout, and the second substrate layer has a second cutout, and wherein the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer are stacked such that the first cutout and the second cutout are arranged in a stack direction overlapping at least in sections (Abstract, FIG. 3 of Reitz, collimator layers have a lattice structure; lattice structures have a series of openings or cut-outs therethrough).
Regarding claim 4, Reitz discloses that a structuring is realized by the arrangement of the first cutout and the second cutout ([0038] of Reitz, collimator layers glued to each other to form collimator module with lattice shape or structure; alignment of cutouts or openings in first and second layers therefore realizes the lattice structure).
Regarding claim 10, Ng discloses that the first hardening step is brought about by a first hardening means (FIG. 5e of Ng, curing devices #60), and the second hardening step is brought about by a second hardening means, and wherein the first hardening means differs from the second hardening means (FIG. 5j of Ng, curing devices #66 which differs from curing device #60).
Regarding claim 11, Ng discloses that the means of material bonding is hardenable with the first hardening means and the second hardening means ([0029] of Ng, portion of resin is cured during pre-lamination; [0033] of Ng, adhesive is cured to harden during full bonding).
Regarding claim 12, Ng discloses that using the holding apparatus comprises using the holding apparatus to simplify the stacking, to stabilize the arrangement of first substrate layer and second substrate layer, or a combination thereof at least during the first hardening step (FIG. 5a, [0027] of Ng, holding tables #48 #50 having stoppers #52; FIG. 5e, [0029] of Ng, adhesive partially cured while first substrate #32 is being supported by lower holding table #48).
Regarding claim 13, Ng discloses removing the holding apparatus at a time before the second hardening step from the arrangement made up of the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer (FIGS. 5e-5g of Ng, laminated substrate #30 removed from lower holding table after pre-lamination and prior to full curing).
Regarding claim 16, Reitz does not specifically disclose that the first substrate layer, the second substrate layer, the means of material bonding, or any combination thereof is made of an x-ray-proof material. Reitz, however, discloses that the collimator layers have metallic components and are used for collimating x-rays ([0055] of Reitz). The materials used for constructing an x-ray collimator as taught by Reitz would necessarily be resistant to x-rays or “x-ray proof”.
Regarding claim 17, Ng discloses that the material bonding layer is applied to the first substrate layer, the second substrate layer, or the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer by a transfer method ([0022] of Ng, adhesive resin dispensed onto at least one of the substrates prior to pre-lamination; dispensing necessarily transfers to adhesive onto the substrate and is therefore a “transfer process”).
Regarding claim 18, Ng discloses that the material bonding layer is applied to the first substrate layer, the second substrate layer, or the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer by the transfer method at a time before the stacking of the first substrate layer, the second substrate layer, or the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer ([0022] of Ng, adhesive resin dispensed onto at least one of the substrates prior to pre-lamination; dispensing necessarily transfers to adhesive onto the substrate and is therefore a “transfer process”; [0028] of Ng, resin dispensed onto substrate surface prior to stacking).
Regarding claim 19, Ng discloses a method for production of a component, the method comprising: producing the component, the producing of the component comprising: providing a first substrate layer and a second substrate layer (FIG. 5a of Ng, substrates #32 #34); stacking the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer (FIG. 5c of Ng, substrate #34 placed onto or stacked on substrate #32) using a holding apparatus configured to positionally fix the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer relative to each other (Abstract of Ng, laminating apparatus includes first and second substrate holders operative to support the first and second substrates and a positioning mechanism coupled to the first and/or second substrate holders to align the substrates relative to one another), wherein a material bonding layer is arranged between the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer ([0022] of Ng, adhesive resin dispensed onto one of the substrates); material-to-material bonding of the first substrate layer to the second substrate layer though hardening (FIG. 5e, [0029] of Ng, prelamination of substrates by curing part of adhesive using curing devices #60 in a first curing process; FIG. 5j, [0031] of Ng, full curing of adhesive in second curing process); and providing the component that comprises the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer, which are bonded to one another in a material-to-material manner via the material bonding layer, which comprises a means of material bonding (FIG. 5j, fully cured laminated substrate #30), wherein the hardening comprises a first hardening step and a second hardening step (FIG. 5e, [0029] of Ng, prelamination of substrates by curing part of adhesive using curing devices #60 in a first curing process; FIG. 5j, [0031] of Ng, full curing of adhesive in second curing process), and wherein a first part area of the material bonding layer is hardened in the first hardening step ([0029] of Ng, only portions of the adhesive cured in first curing process), and a second part area of the material bonding layer is hardened in the second hardening step ([0031] of Ng, adhesive fully cured in second full curing process; fully curing the partially cured adhesive would necessarily cure a second part area of the adhesive); and integrating the component into the medical imaging device.
Ng does not specifically disclose integrating the component into a medical imaging device (i.e., that the method is also a method for integration of a component into a medical imaging device). Reitz, however, discloses a method of manufacturing a collimator module for a tomography device (Abstract of Reitz). The method comprises aligning collimator layers relative to one another and gluing the layers together (Abstract of Reitz). According to Reitz, the aligned layers reduce the influence of scattered radiation on the x-ray detector ([0004] of Reitz). Reitz also discloses integrating the module into a medical imaging device (FIG. 2, [0053] of Reitz, collimator integrated into tomography device). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use collimator layers in the method of Ng to produce a collimator and to integrate the collimator into a tomography device. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to produce a tomography device having collimators which reduces the influence of scattered radiation on the x-ray detector of the tomography device as taught by Reitz ([0004] of Reitz).
Regarding claim 20, Reitz discloses that the component is arranged in the medical imaging device such that the component serves to guide radiation ([0004] of Reitz, collimator reduces scattered x-ray radiation allowing only radiation of a specific spatial direction to fall onto the detector; collimator therefore “guides” or has an influence on the radiation).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng in view of Reitz as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Cernik et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0251215 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Reitz does not specifically disclose that the structuring is a micro structuring. Cernik, however, discloses a collimator for tomography having apertures or cutouts having a diameter of 50 µm (Abstract, [0051] of Cernik). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the collimator in the modified process with aligned lattice openings (i.e., cutouts) having dimensions of 50 µm since Cernik teaches that it was known to form collimators having such dimensions ([0051] of Cernik). According to Cernik, the resulting collimators achieve a high angular resolution ([0014] of Cernik). Since such dimensions are very small or microscopic, the resulting collimator would have structured with micro dimensions (i.e., micro structuring).
Regarding claim 6, Cernik discloses that the structuring has an aspect ratio that is greater than two ([0035] of Cernik, aspect ratio of 6000:1).
Regarding claim 7, Cernik discloses that the aspect ratio that is greater than ten ([0035] of Cernik, aspect ratio of 6000:1).
Regarding claim 8, Cernik discloses that the aspect ratio that is greater than twenty ([0035] of Cernik, aspect ratio of 6000:1).
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng in view of Reitz as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kondo et al. (“Local tentative bonding method to maintain alignment accuracy in bonding process using resin as an adhesive material”, J. Engineering, Vol. 2018, Issue 5, pp. 274-278, May 2018, https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/joe.2017.0801).
Regarding claim 9, Ng does not specifically disclose that the first hardening step is concluded after a first time interval, and the second hardening step is concluded after a second time interval, and wherein the second time interval is greater than the first time interval. Kondo, however, discloses a local tentative bonding process to maintain alignment accuracy wherein a preliminary bonding step was concluded after 90 seconds (pg. 2, ¶ spanning columns, irradiation time for initial bonding set to 90 s) and a final bonding step was concluded after 15 minutes (pg. 3, ¶ spanning columns, adhesive bonding application time was 15 min.). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use longer time intervals for the final bonding in a two-stage bonding process since Kondo establishes that it was known to do so at the time the invention was made. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Ng does not specifically disclose that, after the stacking, the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer are pressed against one another. Kondo, however, discloses applying load to the stacked and preliminarily bonded substrates after stacking (pg. 3, ¶ spanning columns, load applied by bonder during adhesive bonding process). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a load such that the substrates are pressed together after stacking in a two-stage bonding process since Kondo establishes that it was known to do so at the time the invention was made. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng in view of Reitz as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kanack et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0095320 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Ng does not specifically disclose cropping a body that comprises the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer connected to the first substrate layer by material-to-material bonding, after the hardening. Kanack, however, discloses a laminated x-ray collimator wherein the edges at the meeting points between collimator layers are honed or smoothed (Abstract, [0034] of Kanack). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to hone the edges of the laminated collimator in the modified method since Kanack establishes that it was known to do so at the time the invention was made. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Honing involves the removal of material from the collimator and can therefore be considered “cropping” or cutting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that Ng does not teach or disclose stacking the first and second substrate layers using a holding apparatus configured to positionally fix the substrate layers relative to each other as recited in claims 1 and 19 (¶ spanning pp. 9-10 of the amendment). Ng, however, discloses a laminating apparatus which includes first and second substrate holders operative to support the first and second substrates and a positioning mechanism coupled to the first and/or second substrate holders to align the substrates relative to one another (Abstract of Ng).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746