DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 1-4 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu (WO2022109869A1; June 2, 2022).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a method comprising:
emitting particles of radiation from a first position on a radiation source toward a scene (Paragraph 37-42, Figure 1 + 3);
capturing a first partial image of the scene by an image sensor using the particles of radiation from only the first position (Paragraph 37-42, Figure 1 + 3);
emitting the particles of radiation from a second position on the radiation source toward the scene, the second position being different from the first position relative to the scene (Paragraph 37-42, Figure 1 + 3);
capturing a second partial image of the scene by the image sensor using the particles of radiation from only the second position (Paragraph 37-42, Figure 1 + 3);
forming an image of the scene by stitching the partial images (Paragraph 37-42, Figure 1 + 3);
wherein the image sensor comprises radiation detectors arranged in strips;
wherein the image sensor has dead zones among the strips (Paragraph 37-42, Figure 1 + 3);
wherein a portion of the scene in the first partial image is formed by the particles of radiation from only the first position falling on the dead zones of the image sensor (Paragraph 37-42, Figure 1 + 3);
wherein the portion of the scene in the second partial image is formed by the particles of radiation from only the second position falls on active areas of the image sensor (Paragraph 37-42, Figure 1 + 3).
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches the method of claim 1. Liu further teaches wherein the image sensor remains stationary relative to the scene (Paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches the method of claim 1. Liu further teaches wherein each point in the scene is captured in at least two partial images formed by particle of radiation from different positions on the radiation source (Paragraph 37-42, Figure 1 + 3).
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches the method of claim 1. Liu further teaches wherein the radiation source is stationary relative to the scene (Paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches the method of claim 1. Liu further teaches wherein the image sensor comprises a plurality of pixels; wherein the pixels are configured to count numbers of the particles of radiation incident on the pixels, within a period of time (Paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 12, Liu teaches the method of claim 1. Liu further teaches wherein the particles of radiation are X-ray photons (Paragraph 43 – The particles of radiation may be X-ray photons.).
Regarding claim 13, Liu teaches the method of claim 1. Liu further teaches wherein the image sensor further comprises a plurality of radiation detectors that comprise:
a radiation absorption layer comprising an electric contact (Paragraph 50-57);
a first voltage comparator configured to compare a voltage of the electric contact to a first threshold (Paragraph 50-57);
a second voltage comparator configured to compare the voltage to a second threshold (Paragraph 50-57);
a counter configured to register a number of particles of radiation incident on the radiation absorption layer (Paragraph 50-57);
a controller (Paragraph 50-57);
wherein the controller is configured to start a time delay from a time at which the first voltage comparator determines that an absolute value of the voltage equals or exceeds an absolute value of the first threshold (Paragraph 50-57);
wherein the controller is configured to activate the second voltage comparator during the time delay (Paragraph 50-57);
wherein the controller is configured to cause at least one of the numbers of particles to increase by one, when the second voltage comparator determines that an absolute value of the voltage equals or exceeds an absolute value of the second threshold (Paragraph 50-57).
Regarding claim 14, Liu teaches the method of claim 13. Liu further teaches wherein the image sensor further comprises an integrator electrically connected to the electric contact, wherein the integrator is configured to collect charge carriers from the electric contact (Paragraph 61).
Regarding claim 15, Liu teaches the method of claim 13. Liu further teaches wherein the controller is configured to activate the second voltage comparator at a beginning or expiration of the time delay (Paragraph 62).
Regarding claim 16, Liu teaches the method of claim 13. Liu further teaches wherein the controller is configured to connect the electric contact to an electrical ground (Paragraph 62).
Regarding claim 17, Liu teaches the method of claim 13. Liu further teaches wherein a rate of change of the voltage is substantially zero at expiration of the time delay (Claim 15)
Regarding claim 18, Liu teaches the method of claim 13. Liu further teaches wherein the radiation absorption layer comprises a diode (Claim 16).
Regarding claim 19, Liu teaches the method of claim 13. Liu further teaches wherein the radiation absorption layer comprises single- crystalline silicon (Claim 17).
Regarding claim 20, Liu teaches the method of claim 13. Liu further teaches wherein the radiation detector does not comprise a scintillator (Claim 18).
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.
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.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (WO 2022109869A1; June 2, 2022) in view of Cao (US 2022/0334072; October 20, 2022).
Regrading claim 5, Liu teaches the method of claim 1. Liu does not teach wherein the radiation source comprises an electron gun and electron bombardment targets.
Cao teaches wherein the radiation source comprises an electron gun and electron bombardment targets. (Paragraphs 3-9)
Therefore, from the teaching of Cao, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the above-mentioned limitation since electron bombardment targets are known radiation sources in x-ray imaging systems.
Regarding claim 6, Liu teaches the method of claim 5. Liu does not teach wherein the radiation source is configured to cause electrons from the electron gun to bombard the electron bombardment target at the first position or the second position. Cao teaches wherein the radiation source is configured to cause electrons from the electron gun to bombard the electron bombardment target at the first position or the second position (Paragraph 3).
Therefore, from the teaching of Cao, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the above-mentioned limitation since electron bombardment targets at various positions is known in order to ensure the entire target is imaged efficiently and accurately.
Regarding claim 7, Liu teaches the method of claim 5. Liu does not teach wherein the radiation source is configured to cause electrons from the electron gun to bombard the electron bombardment target at the first position or the second position by moving the electron bombardment target relative to the electron gun.
Cao teaches wherein the radiation source is configured to cause electrons from the electron gun to bombard the electron bombardment target at the first position or the second position by moving the electron bombardment target relative to the electron gun.
(Paragraph 3-9).
Therefore, from the teaching of Cao, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the above-mentioned limitation since electron bombardment targets at various positions is known in order to ensure the entire target is imaged efficiently and accurately.
Regarding claim 8, Liu teaches the method of claim 5. Liu does not teach wherein the electron bombardment target is configured to tilt, translate, or both tilt and translate.
Cao teaches wherein the electron bombardment target is configured to tilt, translate, or both tilt and translate. (Paragraph 6).
Therefore, from the teaching of Cao, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the above-mentioned limitation since electron bombardment targets at various positions is known in order to ensure the entire target is imaged efficiently and accurately.
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches the method of claim 5. Liu does not teach wherein the electron gun is configured to generate an electron beam and then deflect the electron beam.
Cao teaches wherein the electron gun is configured to generate an electron beam and then deflect the electron beam. (Paragraph 7).
Therefore, from the teaching of Cao, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the above-mentioned limitation in order to allow for bombardment at various positions to ensure the entire target is imaged efficiently and accurately.
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches the method of claim 5. Liu does not teach wherein the electron bombardment target comprises tungsten.
Cao teaches wherein the electron bombardment target comprises tungsten. (Paragraph 9).
Therefore, from the teaching of Cao, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the above-mentioned limitation since it is a known material to have high atomic weight in order to ensure the target is imaged efficiently and accurately.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISSELLE GUTIERREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/GISSELLE GUTIERREZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884