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 with respect to claims 1 – 3, and 11 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
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, 11 – 14, and 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US 2013/0003913) in view of Wu (US 2019/0109172) and Saito (US 2022/0005858).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong teaches (FIG. 2):
An electronic device configured to detect an object (120) to be detected, comprising:
at least one light source (100) arranged on a first plane and illuminating the object to be detected; and
a plurality of sensors (130) arranged on a second plane and surrounding the object to be detected, wherein the plurality of sensors are stitched together ([0032]), wherein the first plane is different from the second plane (FIG. 2).
Jeong teaches a plurality of sensors surrounding an object to be imaged, but is silent with respect to the structure of the individual sensors and a hybrid structure.
However, Wu teaches (FIG. 6 – 9C):
wherein each of the plurality of sensors comprises:
a support plate (15) having a first surface, a second surface, and a side surface;
a substrate (10) arranged on the first surface;
a sensing unit (11) arranged on the substrate; and
a scintillator (12) arranged on the substrate;
a first driver (13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the routine and conventional sensor structure of Wu in the device of Jeong to enable the structure in a well known and predictable manner.
Wu teaches a flexible base substrate for a hybrid sensor device.
Saito teaches a rigid hybrid sensor device (FIG. 4), having a rigid support substrate (502) with through vias and wiring layer (140) connecting an imaging sensor device (120) to a logic device, i.e. driver (122).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flexible hybrid structure of Wu to utilize the conventional rigid hybrid device structure of Saito for the predictable advantage of integrating sensor devices into a rigid structure in a stable and conventional manner.
Regarding claim 2, Jeong teaches (FIG. 2):
The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the first plane is parallel to the second plane.
Regarding claim 3, Jeong teaches (FIG. 2):
The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein a distance is provided between the first plane and the second plane.
Regarding claim 11, Wu teaches (FIG. 6 – 9C, [0035] – [0040]):
The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of sensors further comprises: a printed circuit board arranged on the second surface of the support plate.
Regarding claim 12, Wu teaches (FIG. 6 – 9C, [0035] – [0040]):
The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of sensors further comprises: a second signal line arranged on the substrate; and a second driver (14) arranged on the substrate and electrically connected to the sensing unit through the second signal line.
Regarding claim 13, Wu teaches (FIG. 6 – 9C, [0035] – [0040]):
The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of sensors further comprises: a housing covering at least one of the plurality of sensors.
Regarding claim 14, Jeong teaches (FIG. 2, [0032]):
The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors are stitched to form half a circle to a full circle.
Regarding claim 16, Jeong teaches (FIG. 2):
The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one light source is a plurality of light sources, and the plurality of light sources surround the object to be detected.
Regarding claim 17, Jeong teaches (FIG. 2):
The electronic device according to claim 16, wherein the plurality of X-ray sources are arranged in a circle on the first plane.
Regarding claim 18, Jeong teaches (FIG. 2):
The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein an angle is provided between a light ray of the at least one light source illuminating the object to be detected and the first plane.
Regarding claim 19, Jeong teaches varying the angle of the X-ray source for optimal imaging above 0 degrees, but fails to expressly disclose:
The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the angle is greater than 0 degrees and less than 60 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the exposure angle of Jeong to whatever angle was necessary or expedient for the specific application and object to be imaged, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See also In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc . v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989), and In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also MPEP § 716.07: “It is to be presumed also that skilled workers would as a matter of course, if they do not immediately obtain desired results, make certain experiments and adaptations, within the skill of the competent worker. The failures of experimenters who have no interest in succeeding should not be accorded great weight. In re Michalek, 162 F.2d 229, 232 (CCPA 1947); In re Reid, 179 F.2d 998, 1002 (CCPA 1950).”
Regarding claim 20, Jeong teaches (FIG. 2):
The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein a light ray emitted by the at least one light source penetrates through the object to be detected and illuminates the plurality of sensors.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US 2013/0003913) in view of Wu (US 2019/0109172) and Saito (US 2022/0005858) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roder (US 6,665,433).
Regarding claim 15, Jeong teaches various configurations of sources and detectors surrounding an object to image with a central axis, but fails to expressly disclose:
The electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising: a central axis passing through a surrounding center of the plurality of sensors, wherein the at least one light source is one light source, and the light source rotates around the central axis.
However, Roder teaches a single X-ray source which rotates at an angle around a central axis to image an object.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the X-ray source of Jeong using the well-known and conventional device structure of Roder for the predictable advantage of enabling multiple source exposure angles without additional X-ray source units being required.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CORY W ESKRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)272-0543. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9 - 5.
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, Julio Madonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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.
/CORY W ESKRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights