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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/29/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In response to the argument (regarding “a collimator element formed as a single, integral element and including a plurality of collimator walls having a wall height along the direction” on p. 6 of the Applicant’s Remarks, it is determined Figs. 1 - 3 of Woelfel teaches this limitation.
In response to the argument (regarding “The retaining element of Woelfel is disclosed as a distinct structure…” on p. 7), it is determined that in paragraph [0169] Woelfel discloses “the anti-scatter collimator 2 can also comprise a retaining element 7 for attaching the anti-scatter collimator 2” and in paragraph [0170] Woelfel discloses “The retaining element 7 can comprise a mechanical connection to the arrangement of the multiplicity of collimator walls 1 of the anti-scatter collimator 2” and, therefore, the retaining element 7 is an integral part of the collimator 2.
In response to the argument (regarding “the protrusion extends beyond wall height in the stacking direction….” on p. 7), Fig. 3 of Woelfel teaches this limitation.
In response to the argument (regarding “defines a stop surface that positions the sensor element at a predetermined position….” on p. 7), paragraph [0170] of Woelfel discloses “The retaining element 7 can be used for attachment inside the X-ray detector, for instance relative to the converter element 11. The retaining element 7 can comprise a mechanical connection to the arrangement of the multiplicity of collimator walls 1 of the anti-scatter collimator 2.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 – 8, and 10 – 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woelfel (US 2021/0280335A1).
With respect to independent claim 1, Woelfel teaches in Figs. 1 – 3 An anti-scatter grid for stacked arrangement with a sensor element for a detection of X-ray radiation, the anti-scatter grid comprising:
a collimator element 2 formed as a single, integral component and including a plurality of collimator walls 1 having a wall height h along a stacking direction sensor 4 is attached inside retaining element 7 on the bottom surface 8; see paragraph [0170], wherein the plurality of collimator walls are arranged adjoining one another in at least one first direction perpendicularly to the stacking direction Fig. 2 shows this element;
wherein at least one collimator wall 1 of the collimator element integrally a mechanical connection disclosed in paragraph [0170] includes at least one end stop element formed as a protrusion 7 that extends beyond wall height this “height” is a relative term. In Fig. 3 of Woelfel, “X” direction is a stacking height. in the stacking direction and defines a stop surface 8 that positions the sensor element 4; see paragraph [0170] at a predetermined position since the retaining element 7 used to attach detector 4 inside of the retaining element 7 in paragraph [0170], Woelfel has this “predetermined position” relative to the collimator element along the stacking direction.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Woelfel teaches in Fig. 3 wherein the at least one end stop element is connected to the plurality of collimator walls via a predetermined fracture site.
With respect to dependent claim 5, Woelfel teaches in paragraph [0122] wherein the collimator element is produced by an additive production technique.
With respect to dependent claim 6, Woelfel teaches in paragraph [0122] wherein the collimator element is produced by a method of selective laser melting or laser sintering.
With respect to dependent claim 7, Woelfel teaches in Fig. 3 wherein the collimator element includes a plurality of end stop elements that are arranged distributed on the collimator element such that they delimit an area which is equal to an areal extent of a sensor element that is to be arranged in a stacked arrangement therewith, at least on two sides.
With respect to dependent claim 8, Woelfel teaches in Fig. 3 wherein the collimator element of the anti-scatter grid includes at least twice an areal extent of a sensor element that is to be arranged in a stacked arrangement therewith, and wherein the collimator element includes a plurality of end stop elements that are arranged distributed on the collimator element such that they delimit at least two areas that are each equal to the areal extent of a sensor element that is to be arranged in a stacked arrangement therewith, each at least on one side.
With respect to independent claim 10, Woelfel teaches in Figs. 1 and 3 an X-ray detector comprising:
at least one sensor element 4 for X-ray radiation; and a collimator element 2 formed as a single, integral component and including a plurality of collimator walls 1 having a wall height h along a stacking direction sensor 4 is attached inside retaining element 7 on the bottom surface 8; see paragraph [0170], wherein the plurality of collimator walls are arranged adjoining one another in at least one first direction perpendicularly to the stacking direction Fig. 2 shows this element;
wherein at least one collimator wall 1 of the collimator element integrally a mechanical connection disclosed in paragraph [0170] includes at least one end stop element formed as a protrusion 7 that extends beyond wall height this “height” is a relative term. In Fig. 3 of Woelfel, “X” direction is a stacking height. in the stacking direction and defines a stop surface 8 that positions the sensor element 4; see paragraph [0170] at a predetermined position since the retaining element 7 used to attach detector 4 inside of the retaining element 7 in paragraph [0170], Woelfel has this “predetermined position” relative to the collimator element along the stacking direction.
With respect to dependent claim 11, Woelfel teaches in paragraph [0180] wherein the collimator element of the anti-scatter grid and the at least one sensor element are adhesively bonded to one another.
With respect to dependent claim 12, Woelfel teaches in Fig. 3 an X-ray source in side of “6” placed opposite to the X-ray detector that is configured to irradiate the X-ray detector with X-ray radiation.
With respect to independent claim 13, Woelfel teaches in Fig. 3 a method for providing a stacked arrangement of an anti-scatter grid and at least one sensor element for detection of X-ray radiation, the method comprising :providing an anti-scatter grid comprising at least one collimator element; providing the at least one sensor element; relative positioning of the collimator element and the sensor element over one another so that an outer edge of the sensor element is in abutment with at least one end stop element of the collimator element; and fixing the relative position of the anti-scatter grid and the sensor element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 9, and 14 – 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to dependent claim 3, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the predetermined fracture site is provided as a wall region of the plurality of collimator walls with an increased porosity relative to a remainder of the plurality of collimator walls.
With respect to dependent claim 4, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the predetermined fracture site is provided in a form of a perforation of the plurality of collimator walls.
With respect to dependent claim 9, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein a first portion of the end stop elements is connected via a predetermined fracture site to a respective collimator wall and a second portion of the end stop elements is connected without predetermined fracture sites to the respective collimator wall.
With respect to dependent claim 14, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
removing the end stop element from the collimator element.
With respect to dependent claim 15, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein a plurality of sensor elements are associated with a common collimator element, wherein firstly a first sensor element of the plurality of sensor elements is positioned relative to the collimator element and a second sensor element of the plurality of sensor elements is positioned relative to the collimator element, and wherein before the positioning of the second sensor element, at least one end stop element is removed from the collimator element.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 EST.
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.
KIHO KIM, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884