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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/26/2024, 8/8/2024, 8/8/2024 and 11/16/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892 (or by one of the IDSes listed above), they have not been considered.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-13, 16-23, 26, 27 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite at least because of one or more of the following:
A) the limitations of (b)(ii) are unclear. The term “collector” is typically used in the art to generically refer to any optical means by which the scintillated light is directed from the scintillator to the photoelectric elements. However, the claim does not define photoelectric elements for converting the light to the electrical signals. As phrased, the claim appears to assign photoelectric capabilities and wiring as all part of the “collector” which is not a typical use of the term, nor is it clear from the specification that such features of the inventive detector are supposed to be encompassed by the claimed “collector”.
B) part (c) requires that the detector includes a plurality of wiring layers; however, it is unclear whether these wiring layers are the same or different than the implied wiring layers of the collector as recited in part (b)(ii).
C) the phrase “by which the detector is configured for fast readout speed” is unclear because the term “fast” is a relative term for which the relative degree of speed is not defined, nor is it clear what structure(s) of the claim contributes to enabling “fast readout speed”. As such, any prior art that anticipates or renders obvious all of the structural features and method steps of the claim will be considered to be “configured for fast readout speed” as broadly as claimed.
D) the phrase “by which the detector is configured for…dual native ISO” is indefinite at least because the structure intended to be encompassed by this desired result is not clear.
Claims 2, 3, 7-9, 11-13, 16-23, 26 and 27 are rejected under this section by virtue of their dependence upon claim 1, thus incorporating the indefinite subject matter, and further for failing to remedy any of the noted deficiencies.
Claim 2 is further indefinite at least because of one or both of:
A) it is unclear whether the listed photosensitive elements correspond to the “photosensitive areas of the collector” or if they are different from the collector.
B) it is unclear whether the listed photosensitive elements are the same or different from the “photosensitive areas” of the collector as implied by claim 1.
Claim 3 is further indefinite at least because the claim appears to require all of the variations that follow the term “including”. This seems unlikely, and thus the claim shall be considered to list all possibilities in the alternative only, in the interest of expediting prosecution.
Claim 7 is further indefinite since a pixel size is being attributed to the collector of claim 1. As noted above, collectors are known as optical means for redirecting or focusing scintillation light, and are usually not defined in terms of pixels, unless it is first established that the collector is pixelated by some means (such as an array of microlenses or conical prisms, etc., where each lens/prism or group of such correspond to one or more pixel elements of a photoelectric element or layer).
Claim 11 is further indefinite at least because the terms “direct” and “indirect” do not make sense in combination with “radiography”.
Claim 12 is further indefinite at least because all of the possibilities are claimed as being required together. This seems unlikely, and therefore, the claim shall be construed to have listed the possibilities in the alternative, in the interest of expediting prosecution.
Claim 17 is further indefinite at least because:
A) it is unclear what structure is intended to be encompassed by “WDR logic”;
B) it is unclear what structure is intended to be encompassed by “readout circuitry”;
C) it is unclear what structure or functionality is intended to be encompassed by the “CMS” circuits and corresponding function about “one or more output streams for controlling the switching of sub streams at each frame”. The function is not clear at least because there are no method steps or other limitations defining the readout process and what a frame or sub-stream of a frame is intended to be in the context of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is further indefinite at least because SPADs are photosensitive elements, and do not make sense being placed within the stacked substrates of the wiring layers. It is unclear whether the SPADs are included in the “photosensitive areas of the collector” or if they are in fact stacked with the one or more circuits of the stacked substrates of the wiring layers.
Claim 20 is further indefinite at least because only one possibility is claimed, followed by the phrase “or combinations thereof.” There is no second possibility claimed with which the first possibility may be combined; thus, is not clear whether the TDC is in fact required by the claim.
Claim 21 is further indefinite at least because it is unclear whether “a computing device” is the same or different than the computing device of parent claim 1.
Claim 22 is further indefinite at least because the “multiple sampling readout” and “one or more output streams for controlling the switching between sub streams at each frame” are not understood or clearly defined. The function is not clear at least because there are no method steps or other limitations defining the readout process and what a frame or sub-stream of a frame is intended to be in the context of the claimed invention.
Claim 26 is further indefinite at least because the intended nature of the “collector” of parent claim 1 is further blurred. Parent claim 1 states “using a collector within the detector to collect the light”. Claim 26 appears to be requiring some other element other than the collector for directing the light to the photosensitive areas. This is confusing.
The Examiner recommends maintaining adherence to the terms of art, defining the collector to be the element configured to direct/aim/collect the scintillation light to the photoelectric elements of the detector, and to define that the detector has photoelectric elements that convert the scintillation light collected by the collector to electrical signals that are subsequently processed by the processing circuits of the plurality of wiring layers.
Claim 27 is further indefinite at least because antecedent basis is lacking for “the aiming of the light”. The Examiner shall assume that the claim depends from claim 26, where the step is first introduced, in the interest of expediting prosecution.
Claim 33 is indefinite at least because of one or more of the following:
A) the term “low dose” is indefinite at least because the term is a relative term for which the degree of dosage is not defined.
B) the term “the light” in (c)(i) lacks antecedence. There is no source of the light. It appears that the critical structure or function of converting the gamma or x-ray beam into light is missing from the claim.
C) antecedent basis is lacking for the term “the two or more wiring layers” in the first line of section (c)(iii).
D) the entire “whereby” clause in lines 9-15 of part (c)(iii) is indefinite at least because all of the objectives either contain undefined relative terms to which the degree required by the claim is unclear, or are intended uses which do not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. As such, any prior art that contains or renders obvious the combination of lines 1-9 will also be equally capable of delivering the desired outcomes of lines 9-15, as broadly as claimed.
E) the limitations of (c)(iv) are indefinite at least because it is unclear what structures are in fact required by the claim, and which are listed in the alternative. Further, the phrase “to allow a dual native gain while minimizing SNR and maintaining a WDR” are relative terms by which there is no measure to compare, nor is it clear which structure(s) contribute to these desired nebulous outcomes.
F) it is unclear what structure is intended to be encompassed by “WDR logic”;
G) it is unclear what structure is intended to be encompassed by “readout circuitry”;
H) it is unclear what structure or functionality is intended to be encompassed by the “CMS” circuits and corresponding function about “one or more output streams for controlling the switching of sub streams at each frame”. The function is not clear at least because there are no method steps or other limitations defining the readout process and what a frame or sub-stream of a frame is intended to be in the context of the claimed invention;
I) the limitations of (c)(iv) are indefinite at least because it is unclear whether the wiring layers and the various circuitry are the same or different from other such structures claimed in (c)(i) or (c)(iii); and these limitations are further indefinite at least because it is unclear what structures are intended to contribute to the desired outcomes of the last two lines.
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 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 1-3, 7-9, 11-13, 16, 21-23, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 5,464,984) in view of Soh (US 2013/0256547 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cox discloses an imaging method (Figs.11, 13 and 15-19), including:
a) causing a beam to travel from an emitter through an examination area for receipt at a detector (for medical imaging, col.4, lines 1-7);
b) transforming the beam that is received by the detector into light (scintillator 530);
c) transforming the light into electrical signals representative of digital images corresponding to the examination area (photodetector array 560) using the detector; and
d) transmitting from the detector the data representative of digital images for display of the digital images to a user on a computing device from the detector (775); where
e) the detector includes a collector (Figs.11 and 13) arranged within the detector, the collector having photosensitive areas 560 and a plurality of wiring layers (Figs.13 and 15-19), the collector being configured to collect the light (via substrate 529) toward the photosensitive areas 560 without first passing through any of the plurality of wiring layers (backlit, Figs.11 and 13); and
f) the plurality of wiring layers includes stacked substrates attached together (Figs.15-19), each substrate having one or more processor circuits 800, 772, 773, 774 by which the detector is configured for fast readout speed.
Further regarding claim 1, Cox does not specifically disclose any sort of processing or circuitry that enables optimal sensitivity at two or more ISO.
Soh teaches the practice of providing an x-ray imaging detector (Fig.1) that has a gain stage 112 that is adjustable over a wide range of operating conditions (via switching capacitors CF1-CFN) in order to optimize the sensitivity of the detector in discreet steps (native ISOs) over a wide dynamic range (pars.0011 and 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Cox to configure the detector for dual native ISO in order to improve the sensitivity and dynamic range of the detector, as taught by Soh.
With respect to claim 2, Cox further discloses that the detector includes a CCD or CMOS architecture (par.0037).
With respect to claim 3, Cox further discloses that the step of transforming the beam into light is performed by an organic or inorganic x-ray converter 530 (col.8, lines 32-41; col.15, line 56, through col.16, line 4).
With respect to claim 7, Cox further discloses that the collector has a pixel size from 0.001 microns to 500 microns (center-to-center pixel pitch of 50 to 100 microns: col.9, lines 54-57).
With respect to claim 8, Cox further discloses that the step of transforming the beam into light is performed by an x-ray converter scintillator 530.
With respect to claim 9, while Cox does not specifically disclose nanodot based scintillators, the skilled artisan readily appreciates the known use of quantum-dot scintillation media for x-ray imagers for the known advantages of improved x-ray conversion efficiencies, where inorganic quantum dots are the first and most common variety thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Cox to use nanodot based x-ray converters for improved imaging efficiencies, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 11, Cox anticipates the claim for the same reasons as parent claim 1 at least because the claim does not make sense, as noted above.
With respect to claim 12, Cox further discloses that each of the stacked substrates of the wiring layers are attached together by microbumps (Figs.15-19).
With respect to claim 13, Cox further discloses that each of the stacked substrates of the wiring layers include single wafers that are butted (Fig.17).
With respect to claim 16, Cox further discloses that the plurality of wiring layers is oriented behind one or more photosensitive areas 560 in the direction of travel of the light within the detector (backlit, Figs.13 and 15-19).
With respect to claim 21, Cox further discloses that the detector includes one or more FPGAs 774 for transmitting the data representative of digital images from the detector for display of the digital images to a user on a computing device (via connector 775).
With respect to claim 22, Cox further discloses that the stacked substrates of the wiring layers include a plurality of ADCs 772, where the data is transmitted using the plurality of ADCs for single or parallel multiple sampling readout and one or more output streams for controlling the switching of sub streams at each frame (col.13, lines 8-33).
With respect to claim 23, Cox further discloses that the computing device is a PC (PC interface 709; see col.13, lines 8-33, and/or col.16, lines 28-32).
With respect to claim 26, Cox further discloses aiming the light to the photosensitive areas 560 of the collector within the detector (at least by virtue of proximity to the scintillator 530, Figs.11 and 13).
With respect to claim 27, Cox further discloses that the aiming of the light is performed using fiber optic plate (col.8, lines 32-37).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Soh, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kato (US 2017/0150932 A1).
With respect to claim 18, Cox does not specifically disclose that the photosensitive areas are SPAD arrays.
Kato teaches the practice of providing SPAD arrays for improved detection efficiency of low-intensity or single-photon x-rays in order to reduce the dose to the patient and to enable and/or improve energy discrimination for improved tissue contrast in the diagnostic image .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Cox to use SPAD arrays in order to reduce the dose to the patient and improve diagnostic capabilities.
With respect to claim 19, Kato further teaches that the SPAD arrays include a bit counter 81 in order to enable precise counting of the photons.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Cox to use SPAD arrays with bit counters in order to reduce the dose to the patient and improve diagnostic capabilities.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Soh and Kato, as applied to claim 19 above, in view of Yin (US 2020/0018642 A1).
With respect to claim 20, Cox/Kato does not specifically disclose a TDC.
Yin teaches the practice of including a TDC for a SPAD imaging array in order to improve temporal resolution for reduced artifact imaging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Cox/Kato to include a TDC in order to improve diagnostic image quality.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Soh and of Wakabayashi et al. (IEEE Feb.2015, see IDS filed 8/8/2024).
With respect to claim 17, Cox, as applied to claim 1, further discloses:
g) DRAM (buffers 773);
h) WDR logic (800, 772, 773 and/or 774);
i) readout circuitry (800, 772, 773 and/or 774);
j) ADCs 772 which necessarily include clocks;
k) CMS effects readout circuits (800, 772, 773 and/or 774); and
l) frame buffers 773.
Further regarding claim 17, Cox does not specifically disclose a DAC, nor does Cox disclose that the ADCs include either of the particular clocks as claimed.
Wakabayashi et al. teaches the practice of providing CMS circuits including a DAC (Figs.1 and 8) for providing the necessary data interfaces between digital and analog components, and further including ADCs driven by SLVS-EC (Figs.1 and 8) in order to improve readout speeds with improved precision (Fig.10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Cox to further include a DAC and to include ADCs driven by SLVS-EC, all in order to provide necessary data conversion and high-precision CMS readout for faster and higher-quality imaging, as taught by Wakabayashi et al.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Wakabayashi et al.
Regarding claim 33, Cox discloses a radiation imaging apparatus (Figs.11, 13 and 15-19), including:
a) one or more emitters, each having one or more focal spot sizes ranging from 0.001 microns to 3 mm (a focal spot size within such a large range is essentially inherent with modern day medical x-ray sources) and configured to emit an x-ray beam through a patient examination area (for medical imaging, col.4, lines 1-7); and
b) one or more detectors (Figs.11, 13 and 15-19) each configured to receive the x-ray beam; where each detector includes a housing containing:
c) a collector configured to convert the x-ray beam into electrical signals, the collector including:
i) an x-ray convertor 530 configured to convert the x-ray beam into light; and
ii) an array of photosensitive elements 560 configured to convert the light into electrical signals; and
d) a plurality of wiring layers 620, 730, 740, and/or 760 electrically coupled to the array of photosensitive elements 560; where the plurality of wiring layers are arranged downstream of the array of photosensitive elements 560 in the direction of the incident x-ray beam such that the converted light from the x-ray convertor 530 is intercepted by the array of photosensitive elements 560 without passing through any of the one or more wiring layers (backlit, Figs.11, 13 and 15-19); where
e) the plurality of wiring layers include stacked substrates 730, 740, 760, each of the stacked substrates having one or more processing circuits 800, 772, 773, 774 configured to process the electrical signals from the array of photosensitive elements 560 into data representative of digital images corresponding to the patient examination area, and to transmit the data representative of digital images to a user on a computing device for displaying corresponding images; where
f) the one or more processing circuits that transmit the data includes an FPGA 774 (via connector 775); and where
g) the one or more processing circuits that process the electrical signals form the array of photosensitive elements 560 include DRAM 773, WDR logic 772-774, readout circuitry 800, 772-774, one or more ADCs 772, CMS readout circuit (800, 772-774: col.13, lines 8-33), and line buffers 773.
Further regarding claim 33, Cox does not specifically disclose a DAC, nor does Cox disclose that the ADCs include either of the particular clocks as claimed.
Wakabayashi et al. teaches the practice of providing CMS circuits including a DAC (Figs.1 and 8) for providing the necessary data interfaces between digital and analog components, and further including ADCs driven by SLVS-EC (Figs.1 and 8) in order to improve readout speeds with improved precision (Fig.10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Cox to further include a DAC and to include ADCs driven by SLVS-EC, all in order to provide necessary data conversion and high-precision CMS readout for faster and higher-quality imaging, as taught by Wakabayashi et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached PTO-892 unless otherwise stated):
US patent documents to Yin and to Mandai each teach a backlit SPAD imaging array with stacked processing substrates;
US patent documents to Ikedo teach an image sensor with stacked processing substrates (Fig.21);
US patent documents to Kato teach an SPAD imaging array for a photon-counting x-ray CT medical imaging system; and
The remaining cited prior art are US patent family members of previously-cited prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R ARTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2485. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6:30pm.
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 on 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.
THOMAS R. ARTMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/THOMAS R ARTMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights