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 “… reactive multilayer system is taken from a film consisting of reactive multilayer material ( e.g., cut out or punched out), and arranged between sensor component and heat dissipation component. In this case, the film may be pre-fixed to at least one of the components, so that the film does not slip. This may be undertaken, for example, with a simple glue point …” in paragraph 26) serves as a glossary (MPEP § 2111.01) for the claim term “reactive multilayer system is pre-fixed”.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 10, 15, and 16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(a) in claim 10, “a carrier unit” on the line before the last line should probably be --the carrier unit-- (antecedent basis);
(b) in claim 15, “a carrier unit” on the line before the last line should probably be --the carrier unit-- (antecedent basis); and
(c) in claim 16, “a carrier unit” on line 12 should probably be --the carrier unit-- (antecedent basis).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The limitation “the reactive multilayer system is attached as the alternating arrangement of lateral layers to the heat sink or the carrier unit” recited in claim 5 does not appear to further limit or include the newly added limitation “the reactive multilayer system is pre-fixed to the carrier unit” recited in claim 1.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also of improper dependent form for the same reasons. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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, 5, 6, 8, 10-12, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattson et al. (US 2011/0210256) in view of Sauciuc et al. (US 2009/0096087) and Heerden et al. (US 2005/0121499).
In regard to claims 1-3, Mattson et al. disclose a method for manufacturing a radiation detector module comprising a sensor component and a heat dissipation component, the sensor component comprising a carrier unit, wherein the heat dissipation component is a heat sink, and wherein the carrier unit has a number of solid material cores, the method comprising:
(a) arranging a layer between the sensor component and the heat dissipation component, wherein the layer is arranged between the heat sink and the carrier unit (e.g., see “… photo detector 120 mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB) 2500 … contacts 1502 routing data from and/or to the readout electronics 124 is soldered to an etched copper sheet 2600, which is affixed to a heat sink 2602 …” in Fig. 26 and paragraph 85, and copper sheet can be labeled as carrier unit);
(b) bringing together the sensor component and the heat dissipation component (e.g., see “… photo detector 120 mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB) 2500 … contacts 1502 routing data from and/or to the readout electronics 124 is soldered to an etched copper sheet 2600, which is affixed to a heat sink 2602 …” in Fig. 26 and paragraph 85); and
(c) affixing the layer for creating a connection between the sensor component and the heat dissipation component, so that, after the affixing, the heat sink and the carrier unit are connected to one another by the connection, wherein the layer is attached as an alternating arrangement of lateral layers to the carrier unit (e.g., see “… photo detector 120 mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB) 2500 … contacts 1502 routing data from and/or to the readout electronics 124 is soldered to an etched copper sheet 2600, which is affixed to a heat sink 2602 …” in Fig. 26 and paragraph 85).
The method of Mattson et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… affixed …” such as the layer affixing comprises activating reactive multilayer system pre-fixed to the carrier unit. However, “… affixed …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… in order to maximize thermal performance and ease of assembly … step 340 of method 300 is to place a solder material above the anti-adhesion layer, place a heat sink above the solder material, and place the die on a substrate in order to form a stack … solder material is a reactive multilayer solder foil … One solder that is suitable for this embodiment is proprietary to the Reactive Nanotechnologies (RNT) company of Hunt Valley, Md., USA. An advantage of the local melting process is that it takes just milliseconds to melt the solder-a short enough time that the other board/die components will not be significantly heated …” in paragraphs 29, 32, and 33 of Sauciuc et al. and “… reactive multilayer foils used in reactive joining are typically fabricated by vapor depositing hundreds of nanoscale layers that alternate between elements with large, negative heats of mixing such as Ni and Al … layers of the fusible material may adhere to one or more of foil 101 and/or component(s) 102, 103, and/or may be used as free-standing sheets. One or more surfaces of reactive multilayer foil 101 may be coated with one or more adhesion layers, such as Incusil …” in paragraphs 10 and 46 of Heerden 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as “reactive multilayer solder foil” from “Reactive Nanotechnologies (RNT) company”, “in order to maximize thermal performance and ease of assembly” such as “adhere to one or more of foil 101 and/or component(s) 102, 103”) for the unspecified affixed of Mattson 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as arranging a reactive multilayer system (RMS) between the sensor component and the heat dissipation component, wherein the reactive multilayer system is arranged between the heat sink and the carrier unit, activating the reactive multilayer system for creating an RMS connection between the sensor component and the heat dissipation component, so that, after the activating, the heat sink and the carrier unit are connected to one another by the RMS connection, wherein the reactive multilayer system is attached as an alternating arrangement of lateral layers to the carrier unit, and wherein the reactive multilayer system is pre-fixed to the carrier unit) as the unspecified “… affixed …” of Mattson et al.
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 1 in so far as understood, the method of Mattson et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… affixed …” such as the reactive multilayer system is attached as the alternating arrangement of lateral layers to the carrier unit by sputtering, electrochemical deposition, or etching. However, “… affixed …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… reactive multilayer foils used in reactive joining are typically fabricated by vapor depositing hundreds of nanoscale layers that alternate between elements with large, negative heats of mixing such as Ni and Al … layers of the fusible material may adhere to one or more of foil 101 and/or component(s) 102, 103, and/or may be used as free-standing sheets. One or more surfaces of reactive multilayer foil 101 may be coated with one or more adhesion layers, such as Incusil …” in paragraphs 10 and 46 of Heerden 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as “reactive multilayer foils used in reactive joining are typically fabricated by vapor depositing”, in order to “adhere to one or more of foil 101 and/or component(s) 102, 103”) for the unspecified affixed of Mattson 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as the reactive multilayer system is attached as the alternating arrangement of lateral layers to the carrier unit by sputtering, electrochemical deposition, or etching) as the unspecified “… affixed …” of Mattson et al.
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1, the method of Mattson et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… affixed …” such as reactive multilayer film is also pre-fixed to the heat dissipation component. However, “… affixed …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… reactive multilayer foils used in reactive joining are typically fabricated by vapor depositing hundreds of nanoscale layers that alternate between elements with large, negative heats of mixing such as Ni and Al … layers of the fusible material may adhere to one or more of foil 101 and/or component(s) 102, 103, and/or may be used as free-standing sheets. One or more surfaces of reactive multilayer foil 101 may be coated with one or more adhesion layers, such as Incusil …” in paragraphs 10 and 46 of Heerden 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as “reactive multilayer foils used in reactive joining are typically fabricated by vapor depositing”, in order to “adhere to one or more of foil 101 and/or component(s) 102, 103”) for the unspecified affixed of Mattson 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as the reactive multilayer system is taken from a film made of reactive multilayer material, and wherein the reactive multilayer system is also pre-fixed to the heat dissipation component) as the unspecified “… affixed …” of Mattson et al.
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 1, the method of Mattson et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… affixed …” such as alternating reactive nickel layers and aluminum solder layers. However, “… affixed …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… reactive multilayer foils used in reactive joining are typically fabricated by vapor depositing hundreds of nanoscale layers that alternate between elements with large, negative heats of mixing such as Ni and Al … layers of the fusible material may adhere to one or more of foil 101 and/or component(s) 102, 103, and/or may be used as free-standing sheets. One or more surfaces of reactive multilayer foil 101 may be coated with one or more adhesion layers, such as Incusil …” in paragraphs 10 and 46 of Heerden 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as “reactive multilayer foils used in reactive joining are typically fabricated by vapor depositing hundreds of nanoscale layers that alternate between elements with large, negative heats of mixing such as Ni and Al”, in order to “adhere to one or more of foil 101 and/or component(s) 102, 103”) for the unspecified affixed of Mattson 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as the reactive multilayer system is constructed from alternating solder layers and reactive layers, of which materials differ, and wherein the solder layers include a number of materials of gold, copper, aluminum, titanium, and metallic glass, the reactive layers include aluminum, titanium, nickel, a-silicon, or cobalt, or the solder layers include the number of materials and the reactive layers include aluminum, titanium, nickel, a-silicon, or cobalt) as the unspecified “… affixed …” of Mattson et al.
In regard to claim 10, Mattson et al. disclose a radiation detector module comprising:
(a) a sensor component comprising a carrier unit (e.g., see “… photo detector 120 mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB) 2500 … contacts 1502 routing data from and/or to the readout electronics 124 is soldered to an etched copper sheet 2600, which is affixed to a heat sink 2602 …” in Fig. 26 and paragraph 85, and copper sheet can be labeled as carrier unit); and
(b) a heat dissipation component, the sensor component and the heat dissipation component being connected to one another by a connection (e.g., see “… photo detector 120 mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB) 2500 … contacts 1502 routing data from and/or to the readout electronics 124 is soldered to an etched copper sheet 2600, which is affixed to a heat sink 2602 …” in Fig. 26 and paragraph 85),
wherein a layer is arranged between the sensor component and the heat dissipation component, and wherein the layer is configured to be affixed for creating the connection between the sensor component and the heat dissipation component, wherein the layer is attached as an alternating arrangement of lateral layers to the carrier unit (e.g., see “… photo detector 120 mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB) 2500 … contacts 1502 routing data from and/or to the readout electronics 124 is soldered to an etched copper sheet 2600, which is affixed to a heat sink 2602 …” in Fig. 26 and paragraph 85).
The module of Mattson et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… affixed …” such as the layer affixing comprises activating reactive multilayer system pre-fixed to the carrier unit. However, “… affixed …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… in order to maximize thermal performance and ease of assembly … step 340 of method 300 is to place a solder material above the anti-adhesion layer, place a heat sink above the solder material, and place the die on a substrate in order to form a stack … solder material is a reactive multilayer solder foil … One solder that is suitable for this embodiment is proprietary to the Reactive Nanotechnologies (RNT) company of Hunt Valley, Md., USA. An advantage of the local melting process is that it takes just milliseconds to melt the solder-a short enough time that the other board/die components will not be significantly heated …” in paragraphs 29, 32, and 33 of Sauciuc et al. and “… reactive multilayer foils used in reactive joining are typically fabricated by vapor depositing hundreds of nanoscale layers that alternate between elements with large, negative heats of mixing such as Ni and Al … layers of the fusible material may adhere to one or more of foil 101 and/or component(s) 102, 103, and/or may be used as free-standing sheets. One or more surfaces of reactive multilayer foil 101 may be coated with one or more adhesion layers, such as Incusil …” in paragraphs 10 and 46 of Heerden 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as “reactive multilayer solder foil” from “Reactive Nanotechnologies (RNT) company”, “in order to maximize thermal performance and ease of assembly” such as “adhere to one or more of foil 101 and/or component(s) 102, 103”) for the unspecified affixed of Mattson 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as a reactive multilayer system is arranged between the sensor component and the heat dissipation component, and wherein the reactive multilayer system is configured to be activated for creating the RMS connection between the sensor component and the heat dissipation component, wherein the reactive multilayer system is attached as an alternating arrangement of lateral layers to the carrier unit, and wherein the reactive multilayer system is pre-fixed to the carrier unit) as the unspecified “… affixed …” of Mattson et al.
In regard to claim 11 which is dependent on claim 10, Mattson et al. also disclose that the sensor component comprises a stack arrangement, the stack arrangement comprising: a detection layer with a number of converter units configured to convert radiation arriving at the number of converter units into electrical signals; and a number of evaluation units configured to evaluate the electrical signals fed in from the detection layer, wherein the radiation detector module is configured for detection of x-ray radiation (e.g., “… detector array 114 includes a plurality of detector modules 116 stacked along a transverse or x-axis. As shown, a detector module 116 includes a plurality of slice-modules 118 … slice module 118 extends along the z-axis direction and includes at least one one-dimensional multi-element photo detector 120 … one-dimensional multi-element photo detector 120 is configured so as to include both the photodiode array 122 and the readout electronics 124 … conventional CT measurements can be made by summing the outputs of the elements of the multielement photodiode array 122 …” in paragraphs 36, 37, and 39).
In regard to claim 12 which is dependent on claim 11, Mattson et al. also disclose that the number of evaluation units is arranged in the stack arrangement between the detection layer and the carrier unit, wherein the carrier unit includes, in a surface area that corresponds to a projection of a respective evaluation unit of the number of evaluation units in a stack direction, a solid material core made of a thermally conducting material, wherein the solid material core extends over a part of the respective surface area, and the solid material core is in contact for heat conduction via a thermally conducting filler material with the respective evaluation unit of the number of evaluation units (e.g., see “… photo detector 120 mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB) 2500 … For improved heat transfer, the contacts 1502 can be plated with copper. The solder joints holding the contacts 1502 to the readout electronics 124 generally conducts heat better than a thermal epoxy … contacts 1502 routing data from and/or to the readout electronics 124 is soldered to an etched copper sheet 2600, which is affixed to a heat sink 2602 …” in Fig. 26 and paragraph 85, and copper sheet can be labeled as carrier unit).
In regard to claim 15, Mattson et al. disclose a radiation detector comprising: a plurality of radiation detector modules arranged next to one another (e.g., “… detector array 114 includes a plurality of detector modules 116 stacked along a transverse or x-axis. As shown, a detector module 116 includes a plurality of slice-modules 118 … slice module 118 extends along the z-axis direction and includes at least one one-dimensional multi-element photo detector 120 … one-dimensional multi-element photo detector 120 is configured so as to include both the photodiode array 122 and the readout electronics 124 …” in paragraphs 36 and 37), a radiation detector module of the plurality of radiation detector modules comprising:
(a) a sensor component comprising a carrier unit (e.g., see “… photo detector 120 mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB) 2500 … contacts 1502 routing data from and/or to the readout electronics 124 is soldered to an etched copper sheet 2600, which is affixed to a heat sink 2602 …” in Fig. 26 and paragraph 85, and copper sheet can be labeled as carrier unit); and
(b) a heat dissipation component, the sensor component and the heat dissipation component being connected to one another by a connection (e.g., see “… photo detector 120 mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB) 2500 … contacts 1502 routing data from and/or to the readout electronics 124 is soldered to an etched copper sheet 2600, which is affixed to a heat sink 2602 …” in Fig. 26 and paragraph 85),
wherein a layer is arranged between the sensor component and the heat dissipation component, and wherein the layer is configured to be affixed for creating the connection between the sensor component and the heat dissipation component, wherein the layer is attached as an alternating arrangement of lateral layers to the carrier unit (e.g., see “… photo detector 120 mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB) 2500 … contacts 1502 routing data from and/or to the readout electronics 124 is soldered to an etched copper sheet 2600, which is affixed to a heat sink 2602 …” in Fig. 26 and paragraph 85).
The detector of Mattson et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… affixed …” such as the layer affixing comprises activating reactive multilayer system pre-fixed to the carrier unit. However, “… affixed …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… in order to maximize thermal performance and ease of assembly … step 340 of method 300 is to place a solder material above the anti-adhesion layer, place a heat sink above the solder material, and place the die on a substrate in order to form a stack … solder material is a reactive multilayer solder foil … One solder that is suitable for this embodiment is proprietary to the Reactive Nanotechnologies (RNT) company of Hunt Valley, Md., USA. An advantage of the local melting process is that it takes just milliseconds to melt the solder-a short enough time that the other board/die components will not be significantly heated …” in paragraphs 29, 32, and 33 of Sauciuc et al. and “… reactive multilayer foils used in reactive joining are typically fabricated by vapor depositing hundreds of nanoscale layers that alternate between elements with large, negative heats of mixing such as Ni and Al … layers of the fusible material may adhere to one or more of foil 101 and/or component(s) 102, 103, and/or may be used as free-standing sheets. One or more surfaces of reactive multilayer foil 101 may be coated with one or more adhesion layers, such as Incusil …” in paragraphs 10 and 46 of Heerden 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as “reactive multilayer solder foil” from “Reactive Nanotechnologies (RNT) company”, “in order to maximize thermal performance and ease of assembly” such as “adhere to one or more of foil 101 and/or component(s) 102, 103”) for the unspecified affixed of Mattson 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as the sensor component and the heat dissipation component being connected to one another by a reactive multilayer system (RMS) connection, wherein the reactive multilayer system is arranged between the sensor component and the heat dissipation component, and wherein the reactive multilayer system is configured to be activated for creating the RMS connection between the sensor component and the heat dissipation component, wherein the reactive multilayer system is attached as an alternating arrangement of lateral layers to the carrier unit, and wherein the reactive multilayer system is pre-fixed to the carrier unit) as the unspecified “… affixed …” of Mattson et al.
In regard to claim 16, Mattson et al. disclose an imaging system comprising:
(a) a radiation detector comprising: a plurality of radiation detector modules arranged next to one another (e.g., “… detector array 114 includes a plurality of detector modules 116 stacked along a transverse or x-axis. As shown, a detector module 116 includes a plurality of slice-modules 118 … slice module 118 extends along the z-axis direction and includes at least one one-dimensional multi-element photo detector 120 … one-dimensional multi-element photo detector 120 is configured so as to include both the photodiode array 122 and the readout electronics 124 …” in paragraphs 36 and 37), a radiation detector module of the plurality of radiation detector modules comprising: a sensor component comprising a carrier unit (e.g., see “… photo detector 120 mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB) 2500 … contacts 1502 routing data from and/or to the readout electronics 124 is soldered to an etched copper sheet 2600, which is affixed to a heat sink 2602 …” in Fig. 26 and paragraph 85, and copper sheet can be labeled as carrier unit); and a heat dissipation component, the sensor component and the heat dissipation component being connected to one another by a connection (e.g., see “… photo detector 120 mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB) 2500 … contacts 1502 routing data from and/or to the readout electronics 124 is soldered to an etched copper sheet 2600, which is affixed to a heat sink 2602 …” in Fig. 26 and paragraph 85), wherein a layer is arranged between the sensor component and the heat dissipation component, and wherein the layer is configured to be affixed for creating the connection between the sensor component and the heat dissipation component, wherein the layer is attached as an alternating arrangement of lateral layers to the carrier unit (e.g., see “… photo detector 120 mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB) 2500 … contacts 1502 routing data from and/or to the readout electronics 124 is soldered to an etched copper sheet 2600, which is affixed to a heat sink 2602 …” in Fig. 26 and paragraph 85); and
(b) a radiation source opposite the radiation detector, the radiation source being configured to irradiate the radiation detector (e.g., “… detector array 114 detects photons emitted by the radiation source 110 that traverse the examination region 106 …” in paragraph 39).
The system of Mattson et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… affixed …” such as the layer affixing comprises activating reactive multilayer system pre-fixed to the carrier unit. However, “… affixed …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… in order to maximize thermal performance and ease of assembly … step 340 of method 300 is to place a solder material above the anti-adhesion layer, place a heat sink above the solder material, and place the die on a substrate in order to form a stack … solder material is a reactive multilayer solder foil … One solder that is suitable for this embodiment is proprietary to the Reactive Nanotechnologies (RNT) company of Hunt Valley, Md., USA. An advantage of the local melting process is that it takes just milliseconds to melt the solder-a short enough time that the other board/die components will not be significantly heated …” in paragraphs 29, 32, and 33 of Sauciuc et al. and “… reactive multilayer foils used in reactive joining are typically fabricated by vapor depositing hundreds of nanoscale layers that alternate between elements with large, negative heats of mixing such as Ni and Al … layers of the fusible material may adhere to one or more of foil 101 and/or component(s) 102, 103, and/or may be used as free-standing sheets. One or more surfaces of reactive multilayer foil 101 may be coated with one or more adhesion layers, such as Incusil …” in paragraphs 10 and 46 of Heerden 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as “reactive multilayer solder foil” from “Reactive Nanotechnologies (RNT) company”, “in order to maximize thermal performance and ease of assembly” such as “adhere to one or more of foil 101 and/or component(s) 102, 103”) for the unspecified affixed of Mattson 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as the sensor component and the heat dissipation component being connected to one another by a reactive multilayer system (RMS) connection, wherein the reactive multilayer system is arranged between the sensor component and the heat dissipation component, and wherein the reactive multilayer system is configured to be activated for creating the RMS connection between the sensor component and the heat dissipation component, wherein the reactive multilayer system is attached as an alternating arrangement of lateral layers to the carrier unit, and wherein the reactive multilayer system is pre-fixed to the carrier unit) as the unspecified “… affixed …” of Mattson et al.
In regard to claim 17, Mattson et al. disclose a radiation detector module comprising a first sensor component and a heat dissipation component connected to one another by a connection, wherein a first layer is arranged between the first sensor component and the heat dissipation component, and wherein the first layer is configured to be affixed for creating the connection between the first sensor component and the heat dissipation component (e.g., see “… photo detector 120 mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB) 2500 … contacts 1502 routing data from and/or to the readout electronics 124 is soldered to an etched copper sheet 2600, which is affixed to a heat sink 2602 …” in Fig. 26 and paragraph 85). The module of Mattson et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… affixed …” such as the layer affixing comprises activating first and second reactive multilayer systems wherein the second reactive multilayer system prefixed to a carrier unit of a second sensor component can be labeled as a replacement part to achieve connection between the second sensor component’s side and the heat dissipation component. However, “… affixed …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… in order to maximize thermal performance and ease of assembly … step 340 of method 300 is to place a solder material above the anti-adhesion layer, place a heat sink above the solder material, and place the die on a substrate in order to form a stack … solder material is a reactive multilayer solder foil … One solder that is suitable for this embodiment is proprietary to the Reactive Nanotechnologies (RNT) company of Hunt Valley, Md., USA. An advantage of the local melting process is that it takes just milliseconds to melt the solder-a short enough time that the other board/die components will not be significantly heated …” in paragraphs 29, 32, and 33 of Sauciuc et al. and “… reactive multilayer foils used in reactive joining are typically fabricated by vapor depositing hundreds of nanoscale layers that alternate between elements with large, negative heats of mixing such as Ni and Al … layers of the fusible material may adhere to one or more of foil 101 and/or component(s) 102, 103, and/or may be used as free-standing sheets. One or more surfaces of reactive multilayer foil 101 may be coated with one or more adhesion layers, such as Incusil …” in paragraphs 10 and 46 of Heerden 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as “reactive multilayer solder foil” from “Reactive Nanotechnologies (RNT) company”, “in order to maximize thermal performance and ease of assembly” such as “adhere to one or more of foil 101 and/or component(s) 102, 103”) for the unspecified affixed of Mattson et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Sauciuc et al. also teach (paragraph 22) that “… Another non-illustrated embodiment comprises two anti-adhesion layers, one of which is between thermally conductive layer 130 and die 110 and the other of which is between thermally conductive layer 13 0 and heat sink 120. All of these embodiments achieve a purpose of embodiments of the invention: the enablement of an ability to remove die 110 from heat sink 120 without damaging either component …”. 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as a first sensor component and a heat dissipation component connected to one another by a reactive multilayer system (RMS) connection, wherein a first reactive multilayer system is arranged between the first sensor component and the heat dissipation component, and wherein the first reactive multilayer system is configured to be activated for creating the RMS connection between the first sensor component and the heat dissipation component) as the unspecified “… affixed …” of Mattson et al. and to provide a detector module’s replacement part comprising a pre-fixed second reactive multilayer system on a side of a second sensor component’s carrier unit that is configured to be connected to the heat dissipation component of Mattson et al., in order to achieve “without damaging” when component replacement is desired.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattson et al. in view of Sauciuc et al. and Heerden et al. as applied to claim(s) 6 above, and further in view of Xun et al. (US 20110027547).
In regard to claim 7 which is dependent on claim 6, the method of Mattson et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… affixed …” such as cutting or punching out the reactive multilayer film. However, “… affixed …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… mechanically-rolled multilayers are fairly ductile and may be readily punched, sectioned, cut, sheared or stamped with little risk of brittle fracture or unwanted ignition. For example, washer shape components with excellent edge quality can be punched from rolled Ni/Al reactive foils (see FIG. 12). In addition, due to the fact that mechanically-rolled foils can deform plastically at room temperature, it is also possible to clad them with other materials like solder or braze by mechanical rolling. The resulting composite structures may thus be effectively used in a variety of applications, including reactive multilayer soldering and brazing …” in paragraph 107 of Xun 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as “punched from rolled Ni/Al reactive foils”, in order to achieve “washer shape components with excellent edge quality”) for the unspecified affixed of Mattson 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as cutting out or punching out the reactive multilayer system from the film made of reactive multilayer material) as the unspecified “… affixed …” of Mattson et al.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattson et al. in view of Sauciuc et al. and Heerden et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Van Heerden et al. (US 2005/0142495).
In regard to claim 9 which is dependent on claim 1, the method of Mattson et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… affixed …” such as applying a voltage to the reactive multilayer system via conductor tracks for activation, and disconnecting the conductor tracks’ parts that project beyond one or more of the sensor and the heat dissipation components after the activation. However, “… affixed …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… providing a component to be joined to another component by the chemical transformation of the reactive multilayer foil; the component may include the electrical lead; the electrical energy source may include one or more of a voltage source …” in paragraph 47 of Van Heerden 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as “component may include the electrical lead; the electrical energy source may include one or more of a voltage source”, in order to achieve “a component to be joined to another component”) for the unspecified affixed of Mattson 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as conductor tracks are present in the sensor component, the heat dissipation component, or the sensor component and the heat dissipation component, or on the reactive multilayer system, which reach at least up to the sensor component, the heat dissipation component, or the sensor component and the heat dissipation component and by which a voltage is applied for activation of the reactive multilayer system, and wherein parts of the conductor tracks that project beyond the sensor component, the heat dissipation component, or the sensor component and the heat dissipation component are disconnected after the activating) as the unspecified “… affixed …” of Mattson et al.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattson et al. in view of Sauciuc et al. and Heerden et al. as applied to claim(s) 12 above, and further in view of Van Heerden et al. (US 2011/0089462).
In regard to claim 13 which is dependent on claim 12, Mattson et al. also disclose that the solid material core extends from an upper side of the carrier unit that faces towards the number of evaluation units in the stack arrangement, through to a lower side of the carrier unit that faces away from the number of evaluation units (e.g., see “… photo detector 120 mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB) 2500 … contacts 1502 routing data from and/or to the readout electronics 124 is soldered to an etched copper sheet 2600, which is affixed to a heat sink 2602 …” in Fig. 26 and paragraph 85). The module of Mattson et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… affixed …” such as evaluation unit is attached to the solid material core by the RMS connection. However, “… affixed …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… thermally coupling slug 32, commonly formed from copper, is disposed at the base of the LED package 31 and is coated with a wetting layer 33 to facilitate bonding to a substrate which incorporates a heat sink … center slug 32 serves to convey heat … substrate containing a heat-sink, which utilizes layers of reactive multilayer foil disposed between the LED assembly connecting leads, center slug, and the associated contact pads on the supporting substrate …” in paragraphs 4, 7, and 10 of Van Heerden 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as “utilizes layers of reactive multilayer foil disposed between the LED assembly connecting leads, center slug, and the associated contact pads on the supporting substrate”, in order to “convey heat”) for the unspecified affixed of Mattson 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as an evaluation unit of the number of evaluation units is attached to the solid material core by the RMS connection) as the unspecified “… affixed …” of Mattson et al.
In regard to claim 14 which is dependent on claim 12, Mattson et al. also disclose that the heat dissipation component comprises a heat sink that is attached to the carrier unit by the connection (e.g., see “… photo detector 120 mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB) 2500 … contacts 1502 routing data from and/or to the readout electronics 124 is soldered to an etched copper sheet 2600, which is affixed to a heat sink 2602 …” in Fig. 26 and paragraph 85). The module of Mattson et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… affixed …” such as the carrier unit’s solid material core is contacted by the heat sink’s RMS connection. However, “… affixed …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… thermally coupling slug 32, commonly formed from copper, is disposed at the base of the LED package 31 and is coated with a wetting layer 33 to facilitate bonding to a substrate which incorporates a heat sink … center slug 32 serves to convey heat … substrate containing a heat-sink, which utilizes layers of reactive multilayer foil disposed between the LED assembly connecting leads, center slug, and the associated contact pads on the supporting substrate …” in paragraphs 4, 7, and 10 of Van Heerden 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as “utilizes layers of reactive multilayer foil disposed between the LED assembly connecting leads, center slug, and the associated contact pads on the supporting substrate”, in order to “convey heat”) for the unspecified affixed of Mattson 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 affixed (e.g., comprising details such as the solid material core of the carrier unit is contacted by the RMS connection on the heat sink) as the unspecified “… affixed …” of Mattson 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, 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights