DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 March, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is improper over Basu et al. US 2018/0321394 and Basu et al. US 10058293 because the prior art fails to teach the newly amended claim limitations and that “side-by-side” vs “front-side” facing arrangement is not mere rearrangement of parts because the claimed invention reduces cross-talk. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner agrees that the amended claim limitation overcomes the rejection under Basu. However, Applicant fails to address the rejection under Basu.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02 March, 2026, with respect to claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of claim 5 and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Basu et al. US 10058293.
Regarding claim 1, Basu discloses a computed tomography (CT) detector (fig. 1), comprising: at least two detection modules arranged side by side in sequence and having pixel units arranged on front surfaces thereof (fig. 4 #402; col. 4 ln. 60-62), a gap being formed between side surfaces of each two adjacent detection modules (fig. 4 #404), rather than between the front surfaces or rear surfaces thereof; and a ray absorber arranged in the gap (col. 5 ln. 3-6; “x-ray shielding material”) or arranged at an X-ray-incidence end of the gap, wherein the ray absorber is made of a material of high atomic number (col. 5 ln. 3-6; “x-ray shielding material”), and the atomic number of the material of high atomic number is greater than or equal to the atomic number of aluminum (col. 5 ln 3-6; the most common x-ray shielding material is lead).
Regarding claim 12, Basu discloses wherein the ray absorber is an integral component arranged in the gap between the two adjacent detection modules (col. 5 ln. 3-6).
Regarding claim 13, Basu discloses wherein: the ray absorber is in a cuboid shape (fig. 4 #404; col. 5 ln 3-6; the gap is cuboid shape so filling it with a ray absorber would mean the ray absorber is also cuboid); and a first dimension of the ray absorber is equal to a width of the gap, wherein the width of the gap is a distance between the two adjacent detection modules, and the first dimension of the ray absorber is a dimension in the same direction as the width of the gap (col. 5 ln 3-6; filling the gap means the width of the ray absorber would span the width of the gap between modules).
Regarding claim 14, Basu discloses wherein: the ray absorber is in a cuboid shape (fig. 4 #404; col. 5 ln 3-6; the gap is cuboid shape so filling it with a ray absorber would mean the ray absorber is also cuboid); a vertical section of the ray absorber is in a rectangular shape, and the vertical section is obtained from a cutting by an intersecting plane, wherein the intersecting plane is vertically perpendicular to the two adjacent detection modules and passes through respective central planes of the two adjacent detection modules (col. 5 ln 3-6; the gap has a rectangular shape in the vertical direction, therefore, so would the ray absorber filling); and a second dimension of the ray absorber is equal to a length of the gap, wherein the length of the gap is a dimension of the gap in a direction perpendicular to the vertical section of the ray absorber, and the second dimension of the ray absorber is a dimension in the direction perpendicular to the vertical section (col. 5 ln 3-6; filling the gap means that the ray absorber would span the length of the gap); or the ray absorber is in a cuboid shape (fig. 4 #404; col. 5 ln 3-6; the gap is cuboid shape so filling it with a ray absorber would mean the ray absorber is also cuboid); a vertical section of the ray absorber is in a rectangular shape, and the vertical section is obtained from a cutting by an intersecting plane, wherein the intersecting plane is vertically perpendicular to the two adjacent detection modules and passes through respective central planes of the two adjacent detection modules (col. 5 ln 3-6; the gap has a rectangular shape in the vertical direction, therefore, so would the ray absorber filling); and a third dimension of the ray absorber is equal to a height of the gap, wherein the third dimension of the ray absorber is a dimension of the ray absorber along a vertical direction and in the vertical section, and the height of the gap is a dimension of the gap along the vertical direction and in the vertical section (col. 5 ln 3-6; filling the gap means that the ray absorber would span the height of the gap).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-11, 15-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu et al. US 10058293.
Regarding claim 2, Basu does not explicitly disclose wherein the ray absorber is arranged at the X-ray-incidence end of the gap and disposed on the two adjacent detection modules, however, it has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 3, Basu does not explicitly disclose wherein a projection of the ray absorber along X-rays directions covers the gap, however, it has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 4, Basu does not explicitly disclose wherein: a first dimension of the ray absorber is greater than or equal to a width of the gap, wherein the width of the gap is a distance between the two adjacent detection modules, and the first dimension of the ray absorber is a dimension in the same direction as the width of the gap, however, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in size has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). A change in size is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of size is not of patentable significance
Regarding claim 5, Basu does not explicitly disclose a second dimension of the ray absorber is greater than or equal to a length of the gap, wherein the length of the gap is a dimension of the gap in a direction perpendicular to a vertical section of the ray absorber, and the second dimension of the ray absorber is a dimension in the direction perpendicular to the vertical section; and the vertical section is obtained from a cutting by an intersecting plane, wherein the intersecting plane is vertically perpendicular to the two adjacent detection modules and passes through respective central planes of the two adjacent detection modules, however, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in size has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). A change in size is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of size is not of patentable significance
Regarding claim 6, Basu does not explicitly disclose wherein the first dimension of the ray absorber is greater than or equal to a distance between two pixel units proximate to two edges of the gap respectively, however, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in size has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). A change in size is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of size is not of patentable significance
Regarding claim 7, Basu does not explicitly disclose wherein the vertical section of the ray absorber is in a circular shape; and the first dimension of the ray absorber is a diameter of the vertical section of the ray absorber, however, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in shapes has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). A change in shape is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of shape is not of patentable significance39
Regarding claim 8, Basu teaches wherein the vertical section of the ray absorber is in a rectangular shape (fig. 4 #404; col. 5 ln 3-6; the gap is rectangular shape so filling it with a ray absorber would mean the ray absorber is also rectangular).
Regarding claim 9, Basu does not explicitly disclose wherein the ray absorber is arranged at an upstream position of the X-ray-incidence end of the gap, and the upstream position of the X-ray- incidence end is a position where the X-rays pass to radiate towards the gap, however, it has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 10, Basu does not explicitly wherein: a region shielded by the ray absorber comprises a first shielded region and a second shielded region; the first shielded region is a range of the gap between the two adjacent detection modules; and the second shielded region is a minimum range from two edges of the gap to respective adjacent pixel units, however, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in size has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). If a change in shape which would result in the first and second region would be considered obvious (see claim 4), then a claim which claims the results of said structure would also be obvious. A change in size is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of size is not of patentable significance
Regarding claim 11, Basu does not explicitly disclose a first dimension of the ray absorber is configured based on a first distance, a second distance, and the shielded region; the first distance is a distance between the ray absorber and a surface of one of the two adjacent detection modules; the second distance is a distance from a focus of the X-rays to the surface of the one of the two adjacent detection modules; and the first dimension of the ray absorber is a dimension in the same direction as a width of the gap, and the width of the gap is a distance between the two adjacent detection modules, however, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in size has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). A change in size is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of size is not of patentable significance
Regarding claim 15, Basu teaches Basu discloses are arranged on two side walls of the gap (col. 5 ln. 3-6).
Basu does not specifically disclose the x-ray absorber comprises two sub-absorbers. However, the fact that the parts are separate is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected result (MPEP 2144). Also, making the parts separate would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because separate sub-absorbers allow for multiple materials to be used for greater design flexibility.
Regarding claim 16, Basu does not explicitly disclose wherein the first sub-ray absorber and the second sub-ray absorber are spaced apart, however, it has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 17, Basu does not explicitly disclose wherein a width of the first sub-ray absorber and a width of the second sub-ray absorber are both less than a distance between the two adjacent detection modules, and the width of the first sub-ray absorber and the width of the second sub-ray absorber are respective dimensions of the first sub-ray absorber and second sub- ray absorber in the same direction as a width of the gap, and the width of the gap is a distance between the two adjacent detection modules, however, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in shapes has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). A change in shape is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of shape is not of patentable significance
Regarding claim 18, Basu but does not explicitly disclose wherein a minimum width of the first sub-ray absorber and a minimum width of the second sub-ray absorber are determined based on the atomic number of the material of high atomic number. However, optimizing the width of a shielding material based on the material composition is a common technique in the art in order to minimize a dose while using the minimum amount of necessary material. Therefore, it would have been obvious as a matter of routine optimization for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have wherein a minimum width of the first sub-ray absorber and a minimum width of the second sub-ray absorber are determined based on the atomic number of the material of high atomic number.
Regarding claim 21, Basu does not explicitly disclose wherein a projection of the ray absorber along X-rays directions covers the gap, however, it has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Basu et al. US 10058293 in view of Bernardi US 4891833.
Regarding claim 20, Basu fails to teach the CT detector of claim 1, further comprising slideways arranged on the two adjacent detection modules respectively, and the ray absorber is movably arranged on the slideways.
Bernardi teaches moving a ray absorber (blinder) with respect to the detector (col. 3 ln. 66 – col. 4 ln. 4) for the purpose of maintaining proper spacing between the absorber and the detector (col. 3 ln. 66 – col. 4 ln. 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have slideways arranged on the two adjacent detection modules respectively, and the ray absorber is movably arranged on the slideways as taught by Bernardi in the CT detector of Basu for the purpose of maintaining proper spacing between the absorber and the detector.
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 Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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 on (571)272-2995. The fax number for the organization where this application or processing 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.
/RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights