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 .
Claim Interpretation
The specification (e.g., see “… Radiation in the following description may include α-rays, β-rays, and γrays, which are beams of particles (including photons) emitted due to radioactive decay, as well as beams with approximately equal or greater energy, such as X-rays, a particle beam, and cosmic rays …” in paragraph 14) serves as a glossary (MPEP § 2111.01) for the claim term “radiation”.
The specification (e.g., see “… an integral damper member 702 is bonded to an adhesive member 701 to form the elastic member 302. The damper member 702 may be made of a discretionary material having elasticity. For example, the damper member 702 may be made of rubber (for example, silicon, urethane, or acrylic rubber), resin (for example, acrylic-based, epoxy-based, olefin-based, or silicon-based), a foam body, or the like. …” in paragraphs 59 and 60) serves as a glossary (MPEP § 2111.01) for the claim term “damper member”.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: “the first surface” on line 7 in claim 17 should probably be --a first surface-- (there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jadrich et al. (US 2017/0052263) in view of Cheung et al. (US 2006/0192131) and Ergler et al. (US 2006/0192131).
In regard to claim 1, Jadrich et al. disclose a radiation detection apparatus comprising:
(a) a plurality of sensor units each including a semiconductor layer configured to convert radiation into a charge, a first surface located on a radiation incident side, and a second surface located on an opposite side to the first surface (e.g., see “… Direct conversion image sensors, such as made using selenium, directly capture X-rays in a photo-conductive material to produce electrical signals in an array of pixels … detector 114 is positioned diametrically opposite the x-ray source 112 and an object 110 under examination is positioned therebetween, whereby x-rays 104 pass through the object 110 and are detected by a two-dimensional array of imaging elements, or pixels, in the detector 114 … Each of the sensor tiles 201-204 may be said to have a major surface referred to herein as a top side, or sensor side, and a major surface opposite the top side referred to herein as a bottom side, or back side …” in Fig. 14 and paragraphs 2, 28, and 29);
(b) a support member (e.g., see “… substrate 302 …” in Fig. 14 and paragraph 37);
(c) an elastic member located between the second surface of each of the plurality of sensor units and the support member (e.g., see “… One exemplary compliant film is manufactured and sold by the 3M company of St. Paul, Minn. under the name of VHB4914, which is 0.100 mm thick with elastic modulus Ef=0.6 MPa … compliant film 306 is compressed to a smaller thickness 1304 between the substrate 302 and the die 201 as compared to its thickness between the substrate 302 and the die 202. This is due to the variation in thickness of the die 201, 202 (the die 201 is thicker) when the die 201, 202, are pressed against the compliant film 306 …” in Fig. 14 and paragraphs 37 and 38); and
(d) a substrate that covers the first surface of each of the plurality of sensor units (e.g., see “… protective layer (not shown) may be applied to at least the sensor side of the die 201 prior to or during the procedure described herein …” in Fig. 14 and paragraph 34),
wherein the elastic member presses each of the plurality of sensor units toward the substrate (e.g., see “… One exemplary compliant film is manufactured and sold by the 3M company of St. Paul, Minn. under the name of VHB4914, which is 0.100 mm thick with elastic modulus Ef=0.6 MPa … compliant film 306 is compressed to a smaller thickness 1304 between the substrate 302 and the die 201 as compared to its thickness between the substrate 302 and the die 202. This is due to the variation in thickness of the die 201, 202 (the die 201 is thicker) when the die 201, 202, are pressed against the compliant film 306 …” in Fig. 14 and paragraphs 37 and 38).
The apparatus of Jadrich et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… protective layer …” such as the substrate includes an electrically conductive layer that faces the first surface of each of the plurality of sensor units and an insulating layer that covers the electrically conductive layer, the electrically conductive layer being configured to apply a voltage to the semiconductor layer. However, “… protective layer …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… top electrode 100, a charge barrier layer 102 (typically made of Parylene) separating the top electrode from an amorphous selenium-based charge generator layer 104 … One of the functions of the charge barrier layer is protection of the thin-film transistors … well known components of an imaging panel, such as a protective layer over top electrode 100 (e.g. Parylene passivation over a top electrode, or any protective layer over the top electrode) and various other mechanical or electrical components that are a part of the imaging panel …” in paragraphs 4 and 28 of Cheung et al. and “… On the incident side 6 the sensor surface elements 4 are in contact with a voltage connection element 14, which serves to apply the extraction voltage …” in paragraph 122 of Ergler et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional protective layer (e.g., comprising details such as “well known components of an imaging panel, such as a protective layer over top electrode 100 (e.g. Parylene passivation over a top electrode, or any protective layer over the top electrode) and various other mechanical or electrical components that are a part of the imaging panel”, in order to “apply the extraction voltage”) for the unspecified protective layer of Jadrich et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional protective layer (e.g., comprising details such as the substrate includes an electrically conductive layer that faces the first surface of each of the plurality of sensor units and an insulating layer that covers the electrically conductive layer, the electrically conductive layer being configured to apply a voltage to the semiconductor layer) as the unspecified protective layer of Jadrich et al.
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1, Jadrich et al. also disclose that the elastic member includes a damper member (e.g., see “… One exemplary compliant film is manufactured and sold by the 3M company of St. Paul, Minn. under the name of VHB4914, which is 0.100 mm thick with elastic modulus Ef=0.6 MPa …” in Fig. 14 and paragraph 37).
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 1, Jadrich et al. also disclose that variation in distance from the substrate of the first surfaces of the plurality of sensor units is less than variation in distance from the substrate of the second surfaces of the plurality of sensor units (e.g., see “… die 201, 202, top surfaces 311, 312, respectively, are coplanar, which is particularly critical at the tile seam 1302 so that adequate image sharpness and uniformity is achieved. The compliant film 306 is compressed to a smaller thickness 1304 between the substrate 302 and the die 201 as compared to its thickness between the substrate 302 and the die 202. This is due to the variation in thickness of the die 201, 202 (the die 201 is thicker) when the die 201, 202, are pressed against the compliant film 306 …” in Fig. 14 and paragraph 38).
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 1, Jadrich et al. also disclose a plurality of sensor modules each including the plurality of sensor units, the elastic member, and the support member (e.g., see “… Direct conversion image sensors, such as made using selenium, directly capture X-rays in a photo-conductive material to produce electrical signals in an array of pixels … detector 114 is positioned diametrically opposite the x-ray source 112 and an object 110 under examination is positioned therebetween, whereby x-rays 104 pass through the object 110 and are detected by a two-dimensional array of imaging elements, or pixels, in the detector 114 … Each of the sensor tiles 201-204 may be said to have a major surface referred to herein as a top side, or sensor side, and a major surface opposite the top side referred to herein as a bottom side, or back side … One exemplary compliant film is manufactured and sold by the 3M company of St. Paul, Minn. under the name of VHB4914, which is 0.100 mm thick with elastic modulus Ef=0.6 MPa … compliant film 306 is compressed to a smaller thickness 1304 between the substrate 302 and the die 201 as compared to its thickness between the substrate 302 and the die 202. This is due to the variation in thickness of the die 201, 202 (the die 201 is thicker) when the die 201, 202, are pressed against the compliant film 306 …” in Fig. 14 and paragraphs 2, 28, 29, 37, and 38). The apparatus of Jadrich et al. lacks an explicit description of details such as common disposal of the “… protective layer …” for the sensor modules. However, “… protective layer …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… top electrode 100, a charge barrier layer 102 (typically made of Parylene) separating the top electrode from an amorphous selenium-based charge generator layer 104 … One of the functions of the charge barrier layer is protection of the thin-film transistors … well known components of an imaging panel, such as a protective layer over top electrode 100 (e.g. Parylene passivation over a top electrode, or any protective layer over the top electrode) and various other mechanical or electrical components that are a part of the imaging panel …” in paragraphs 4 and 28 of Cheung et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional protective layer (e.g., comprising details such as “Parylene”, in order for “protection of the thin-film transistors”) for the unspecified protective layer of Jadrich et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional protective layer (e.g., comprising details such as the substrate is disposed in common for the plurality of sensor modules) as the unspecified protective layer of Jadrich et al.
In regard to claim 11, Jadrich et al. disclose a radiation detection apparatus comprising:
(a) a sensor unit including a semiconductor layer configured to convert radiation into a charge, a first surface located on a radiation incident side, and a second surface located on an opposite side to the first surface (e.g., see “… Direct conversion image sensors, such as made using selenium, directly capture X-rays in a photo-conductive material to produce electrical signals in an array of pixels … detector 114 is positioned diametrically opposite the x-ray source 112 and an object 110 under examination is positioned therebetween, whereby x-rays 104 pass through the object 110 and are detected by a two-dimensional array of imaging elements, or pixels, in the detector 114 … Each of the sensor tiles 201-204 may be said to have a major surface referred to herein as a top side, or sensor side, and a major surface opposite the top side referred to herein as a bottom side, or back side …” in Fig. 14 and paragraphs 2, 28, and 29);
(b) a support member (e.g., see “… substrate 302 …” in Fig. 14 and paragraph 37);
(c) a substrate that covers the first surface of each of a plurality of the sensor units (e.g., see “… protective layer (not shown) may be applied to at least the sensor side of the die 201 prior to or during the procedure described herein …” in Fig. 14 and paragraph 34); and
(d) an elastic member located between the second surface of each of the plurality of sensor units and the support member for pressing each of the plurality of sensor units toward the substrate (e.g., see “… One exemplary compliant film is manufactured and sold by the 3M company of St. Paul, Minn. under the name of VHB4914, which is 0.100 mm thick with elastic modulus Ef=0.6 MPa … compliant film 306 is compressed to a smaller thickness 1304 between the substrate 302 and the die 201 as compared to its thickness between the substrate 302 and the die 202. This is due to the variation in thickness of the die 201, 202 (the die 201 is thicker) when the die 201, 202, are pressed against the compliant film 306 …” in Fig. 14 and paragraphs 37 and 38).
The apparatus of Jadrich et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… protective layer …” such as the substrate includes an electrically conductive layer that faces the first surface of each of the plurality of sensor units and an insulating layer that covers the electrically conductive layer, the electrically conductive layer being configured to apply a voltage to the semiconductor layer. However, “… protective layer …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… top electrode 100, a charge barrier layer 102 (typically made of Parylene) separating the top electrode from an amorphous selenium-based charge generator layer 104 … One of the functions of the charge barrier layer is protection of the thin-film transistors … well known components of an imaging panel, such as a protective layer over top electrode 100 (e.g. Parylene passivation over a top electrode, or any protective layer over the top electrode) and various other mechanical or electrical components that are a part of the imaging panel …” in paragraphs 4 and 28 of Cheung et al. and “… On the incident side 6 the sensor surface elements 4 are in contact with a voltage connection element 14, which serves to apply the extraction voltage …” in paragraph 122 of Ergler et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional protective layer (e.g., comprising details such as “well known components of an imaging panel, such as a protective layer over top electrode 100 (e.g. Parylene passivation over a top electrode, or any protective layer over the top electrode) and various other mechanical or electrical components that are a part of the imaging panel”, in order to “apply the extraction voltage”) for the unspecified protective layer of Jadrich et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional protective layer (e.g., comprising details such as the substrate includes an electrically conductive layer that faces the first surface of each of the plurality of sensor units and an insulating layer that covers the electrically conductive layer, the electrically conductive layer being configured to apply a voltage to the semiconductor layer) as the unspecified protective layer of Jadrich et al.
In regard to claim 12, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 1 above. Jadrich et al. disclose a CT apparatus comprising:
(a) the radiation detection apparatus;
(b) a radiation generator configured to emit radiation toward the radiation detection apparatus (e.g., see “… detector 114 is positioned diametrically opposite the x-ray source 112 and an object 110 under examination is positioned therebetween, whereby x-rays 104 pass through the object 110 and are detected by a two-dimensional array of imaging elements, or pixels, in the detector 114 …” in Fig. 14 and paragraph 28); and
(c) a signal processing unit configured to process signals output from the radiation detection apparatus (e.g., see “… cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3-D image reconstruction applications … Operation and control of the x-ray system 100 components just described may be centralized in a computer system 106 …” in Fig. 14 and paragraph 28).
In regard to claim 13, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 11 above. Jadrich et al. disclose a CT apparatus comprising:
(a) the radiation detection apparatus;
(b) a radiation generator configured to emit radiation toward the radiation detection apparatus (e.g., see “… detector 114 is positioned diametrically opposite the x-ray source 112 and an object 110 under examination is positioned therebetween, whereby x-rays 104 pass through the object 110 and are detected by a two-dimensional array of imaging elements, or pixels, in the detector 114 …” in Fig. 14 and paragraph 28); and
(c) a signal processing unit configured to process signals output from the radiation detection apparatus (e.g., see “… cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3-D image reconstruction applications … Operation and control of the x-ray system 100 components just described may be centralized in a computer system 106 …” in Fig. 14 and paragraph 28).
In regard to claim 15, Jadrich et al. disclose a sensor module comprising:
(a) a sensor unit including a semiconductor layer configured to convert radiation into a charge, a first surface located on a radiation incident side, and a second surface located on an opposite side to the first surface (e.g., see “… Direct conversion image sensors, such as made using selenium, directly capture X-rays in a photo-conductive material to produce electrical signals in an array of pixels … detector 114 is positioned diametrically opposite the x-ray source 112 and an object 110 under examination is positioned therebetween, whereby x-rays 104 pass through the object 110 and are detected by a two-dimensional array of imaging elements, or pixels, in the detector 114 … Each of the sensor tiles 201-204 may be said to have a major surface referred to herein as a top side, or sensor side, and a major surface opposite the top side referred to herein as a bottom side, or back side …” in Fig. 14 and paragraphs 2, 28, and 29);
(b) a support member (e.g., see “… substrate 302 …” in Fig. 14 and paragraph 37);
(c) an elastic member located between the second surface of each of a plurality of the sensor units and the support member, and being configured to press each of the plurality of sensor units toward the substrate (e.g., see “… One exemplary compliant film is manufactured and sold by the 3M company of St. Paul, Minn. under the name of VHB4914, which is 0.100 mm thick with elastic modulus Ef=0.6 MPa … compliant film 306 is compressed to a smaller thickness 1304 between the substrate 302 and the die 201 as compared to its thickness between the substrate 302 and the die 202. This is due to the variation in thickness of the die 201, 202 (the die 201 is thicker) when the die 201, 202, are pressed against the compliant film 306 …” in Fig. 14 and paragraphs 37 and 38); and
(d) a substrate that covers the first surface of each of the plurality of sensor units (e.g., see “… protective layer (not shown) may be applied to at least the sensor side of the die 201 prior to or during the procedure described herein …” in Fig. 14 and paragraph 34).
The module of Jadrich et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… protective layer …” such as the substrate includes an electrically conductive layer that faces the first surface of each of the plurality of sensor units and an insulating layer that covers the electrically conductive layer, the electrically conductive layer being configured to apply a voltage to the semiconductor layer. However, “… protective layer …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… top electrode 100, a charge barrier layer 102 (typically made of Parylene) separating the top electrode from an amorphous selenium-based charge generator layer 104 … One of the functions of the charge barrier layer is protection of the thin-film transistors … well known components of an imaging panel, such as a protective layer over top electrode 100 (e.g. Parylene passivation over a top electrode, or any protective layer over the top electrode) and various other mechanical or electrical components that are a part of the imaging panel …” in paragraphs 4 and 28 of Cheung et al. and “… On the incident side 6 the sensor surface elements 4 are in contact with a voltage connection element 14, which serves to apply the extraction voltage …” in paragraph 122 of Ergler et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional protective layer (e.g., comprising details such as “well known components of an imaging panel, such as a protective layer over top electrode 100 (e.g. Parylene passivation over a top electrode, or any protective layer over the top electrode) and various other mechanical or electrical components that are a part of the imaging panel”, in order to “apply the extraction voltage”) for the unspecified protective layer of Jadrich et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional protective layer (e.g., comprising details such as the substrate includes an electrically conductive layer that faces the first surface of each of the plurality of sensor units and an insulating layer that covers the electrically conductive layer, the electrically conductive layer being configured to apply a voltage to the semiconductor layer) as the unspecified protective layer of Jadrich et al.
In regard to claim 17, Jadrich et al. disclose a method of operating a radiation detection apparatus comprising an elastic member disposed between a plurality of sensor units that each include a semiconductor layer configured to convert radiation into a charge and a support member (e.g., see “… Direct conversion image sensors, such as made using selenium, directly capture X-rays in a photo-conductive material to produce electrical signals in an array of pixels … detector 114 is positioned diametrically opposite the x-ray source 112 and an object 110 under examination is positioned therebetween, whereby x-rays 104 pass through the object 110 and are detected by a two-dimensional array of imaging elements, or pixels, in the detector 114 … Each of the sensor tiles 201-204 may be said to have a major surface referred to herein as a top side, or sensor side, and a major surface opposite the top side referred to herein as a bottom side, or back side … One exemplary compliant film is manufactured and sold by the 3M company of St. Paul, Minn. under the name of VHB4914, which is 0.100 mm thick with elastic modulus Ef=0.6 MPa … compliant film 306 is compressed to a smaller thickness 1304 between the substrate 302 and the die 201 as compared to its thickness between the substrate 302 and the die 202. This is due to the variation in thickness of the die 201, 202 (the die 201 is thicker) when the die 201, 202, are pressed against the compliant film 306 …” in Fig. 14 and paragraphs 2, 28, 29, 37, and 38), and a substrate fixed to the support member in a state in which the plurality of sensor units are pressed toward the support member by the substrate (e.g., see “… protective layer (not shown) may be applied to at least the sensor side of the die 201 prior to or during the procedure described herein …” in Fig. 14 and paragraph 34). The method of Jadrich et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… produce electrical signals …” such as the substrate includes an electrically conductive layer that faces the first surface of each of the plurality of sensor units and an insulating layer that covers the electrically conductive layer, applying a voltage from the electrically conductive layer to the semiconductor layer. However, “… produce electrical signals …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… top electrode 100, a charge barrier layer 102 (typically made of Parylene) separating the top electrode from an amorphous selenium-based charge generator layer 104 … One of the functions of the charge barrier layer is protection of the thin-film transistors … well known components of an imaging panel, such as a protective layer over top electrode 100 (e.g. Parylene passivation over a top electrode, or any protective layer over the top electrode) and various other mechanical or electrical components that are a part of the imaging panel …” in paragraphs 4 and 28 of Cheung et al. and “… On the incident side 6 the sensor surface elements 4 are in contact with a voltage connection element 14, which serves to apply the extraction voltage …” in paragraph 122 of Ergler et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional imaging (e.g., comprising details such as “well known components of an imaging panel, such as a protective layer over top electrode 100 (e.g. Parylene passivation over a top electrode, or any protective layer over the top electrode) and various other mechanical or electrical components that are a part of the imaging panel”, in order to “apply the extraction voltage”) for the unspecified imaging of Jadrich et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional imaging (e.g., comprising details such as the substrate includes an electrically conductive layer that faces the first surface of each of the plurality of sensor units and an insulating layer that covers the electrically conductive layer, applying a voltage from the electrically conductive layer to the semiconductor layer) as the unspecified imaging of Jadrich et al.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jadrich et al. in view of Cheung et al. and Ergler et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Wei (US 2013/0306875).
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 1, the apparatus of Jadrich et al. lacks an explicit description of details such as the “… compliant film …” includes a first portion in contact with the second surface and a second portion not in contact with the second surface. However, “… compliant film …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… epoxy is printed or otherwise applied along the perimeter (perimeter epoxy 70) of the tiled imager chip assembly. In certain implementations, a space may be left at the corners or at other locations on the perimeter to allow air to escape when a substrate is adhered to the epoxy …” in paragraph 42 of Wei). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional elastic member (e.g., comprising details such as “space may be left at the corners or at other locations on the perimeter”, in order to “allow air to escape when a substrate is adhered”) for the unspecified elastic member of Jadrich et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional elastic member (e.g., comprising details such as the second surface of each of the plurality of sensor units includes a first portion in contact with the elastic member and a second portion not in contact with the elastic member) as the unspecified elastic member of Jadrich et al.
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 1, Jadrich et al. also disclose that the elastic member is disposed in common for the plurality of sensor units (e.g., see Fig. 14). The apparatus of Jadrich et al. lacks an explicit description of details such as a portion of the “… compliant film …” that overlaps a gap between the sensor units have a thickness less than a distance between the second surface and the support member. However, “… compliant film …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… epoxy is printed or otherwise applied along the perimeter (perimeter epoxy 70) of the tiled imager chip assembly. In certain implementations, a space may be left at the corners or at other locations on the perimeter to allow air to escape when a substrate is adhered to the epoxy …” in paragraph 42 of Wei). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional elastic member (e.g., comprising details such as “space may be left at the corners or at other locations on the perimeter”, in order to “allow air to escape when a substrate is adhered”) for the unspecified elastic member of Jadrich et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional elastic member (e.g., comprising details such as a thickness of a portion of the elastic member that overlaps a gap between the plurality of sensor units is less than a distance between the second surface of each of the plurality of sensor units and the support member) as the unspecified elastic member of Jadrich et al.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jadrich et al. in view of Cheung et al. and Ergler et al. (US 2006/0192131) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Ergler et al. (US 2018/0088248).
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1, the apparatus of Jadrich et al. lacks an explicit description of details such as the “… compliant film …” includes a portion has a thermal conductivity of 1.5 W/(m·K) or greater. However, “… compliant film …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… intermediate layer material or the intermediate layer has a thermal conductivity of more than 0.5 W/mK, preferably more than 2 W /mK, particularly preferably more than 6 W /mK and in particular preferably more than 7 W/mK. The higher the thermal conductivity of the intermediate layer, the more suitable the intermediate layer is for reaching a homogeneous temperature distribution in the converter element …” in US 2018/0088248 paragraph 58 and 59 of Ergler et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional elastic member (e.g., comprising details such as “preferably more than 2 W /mK”, in order to achieve “homogeneous temperature distribution”) for the unspecified elastic member of Jadrich et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional elastic member (e.g., comprising details such as a portion has a thermal conductivity of 1.5 W/(m·K) or greater) as the unspecified elastic member of Jadrich et al.
In regard to claim 7 which is dependent on claim 1, the apparatus of Jadrich et al. lacks an explicit description of details such as the “… compliant film …” includes a first portion, and a second portion having a higher thermal conductivity than the first portion. However, “… compliant film …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… intermediate layer material or the intermediate layer has a thermal conductivity of more than 0.5 W/mK, preferably more than 2 W /mK, particularly preferably more than 6 W /mK and in particular preferably more than 7 W/mK. The higher the thermal conductivity of the intermediate layer, the more suitable the intermediate layer is for reaching a homogeneous temperature distribution in the converter element …” in US 2018/0088248 paragraph 58 and 59 of Ergler et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional elastic member (e.g., comprising details such as “preferably more than 2 W /mK”, in order to achieve “homogeneous temperature distribution”) for the unspecified elastic member of Jadrich et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional elastic member (e.g., comprising details such a first portion, and a second portion having a higher thermal conductivity than the first portion) as the unspecified elastic member of Jadrich et al.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jadrich et al. in view of Cheung et al. and Ergler et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Freund et al. (US 2012/0132833).
In regard to claim 9 which is dependent on claim 1, the apparatus of Jadrich et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… protective layer …” such as the substrate includes a grid configured to reduce scattered rays. However, “… protective layer …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… Collimators are therefore arranged upstream of the radiation converters in order to reduce the detected portion of scattered radiation in the detector signals … alignment and/or adjustment of the collimator when being fixed to the radiation converter 9, 10 is herewith reduced by means of an adhesive. Epoxy adhesives are considered as adhesives for instance. The adhesive layer is either applied to the radiation exit face 2 selectively or 2-dimensionally. Additionally or as an alternative, the application of the adhesive to the radiation entry side of the radiation converter 9, 10 would also be conceivable. The adhesive layer thickness is selected here such that possible gaps between the collimator 1 and the radiation converter 9, 10 are closed …” in paragraphs 4 and 50 of Freund et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional protective layer (e.g., comprising details such as “adhesive layer thickness is selected here such that possible gaps between the collimator 1 and the radiation converter 9, 10 are closed”, in order to “reduce the detected portion of scattered radiation in the detector signals”) for the unspecified protective layer of Jadrich et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional protective layer (e.g., comprising details such as the substrate includes a grid configured to reduce scattered rays) as the unspecified protective layer of Jadrich et al.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jadrich et al. in view of Cheung et al. and Ergler et al. as applied to claim(s) 12 above, and further in view of Altunbas (US 2020/0268330).
In regard to claim 14 which is dependent on claim 12, Jadrich et al. also disclose that the signal processing unit processes signals output from the radiation detection apparatus and is configured to generate image data resulting from radiation that has passed through an inspection subject (e.g., see “… cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3-D image reconstruction applications … Operation and control of the x-ray system 100 components just described may be centralized in a computer system 106 …” in Fig. 14 and paragraph 28). The apparatus of Jadrich et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… two-dimensional array of imaging elements, or pixels …” such as photon counting. However, “… two-dimensional array of imaging elements, or pixels …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… To address these shortcomings of energy integrating detectors, photon counting detectors were developed. For example, photon counting detectors can quantitate the energy of individual x-rays and count each x-ray that interacts with a detector …” in paragraph 171 of Altunbas). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional detector (e.g., comprising details such as “photon counting detectors”, in order to “address these shortcomings of energy integrating detectors”) for the unspecified detector of Jadrich et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional detector (e.g., comprising details such as the radiation detection apparatus is a photon counting radiation detection apparatus, and the signal processing unit is configured to generate image data using a counting result of radiation photons resulting from radiation that has passed through an inspection subject) as the unspecified detector of Jadrich et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 at (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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884