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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 7/29/2026 was accepted and entered. Accordingly, claim(s) 1 has/have been amended. No claim(s) has/have been cancelled. No claim(s) has/have been newly added. Thus, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that shield segment 112 of Hawver is not formed of a material that is mechanically stronger than plastic. However, Hawver teaches that 112 can be made of nanocrystalline iron-nickel alloy ([0091]), which inherently has a higher tensile strength than some plastics.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “mechanically stronger than plastic” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mechanically stronger than plastic” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification provides two examples of materials (carbon fiber or metal) for the rigid components 134 ([0053] of specification received 5/9/2024), but this is not sufficient to define the metes and bounds of what would infringe on “mechanically stronger than plastic.” For example, what mechanical strength is being compared is unclear, there are many types of plastics with different properties and strengths, and different configurations of materials may affect the strength of the material.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawver (US 20100246771) in view of Konkle (US 8,680,475).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Hawver teaches an x-ray detector ([0048]), comprising:
a housing (92);
a conductive coating disposed on the housing ([0083]);
a two-dimensional sensor array disposed within the housing and configured to generate image data in response to incident x-rays (Fig. 1; [0002]; [0007]);
a front plate (80) connected to the housing, the front plate and the plastic housing forming an enclosure surrounding the two-dimensional sensor array; and
a rigid component coupled to the plastic housing within the enclosure by an adhesive, the rigid component formed of a material that is mechanically stronger than plastic and configured to increase a rigidity the plastic housing (for example: 112; [0084]-[0085]; [0095]);
wherein the conductive coating and the front plate form at least part of an electromagnetic interference shield around the two-dimensional sensor array ([0048]; 83; 90-92).
Hawver is generally directed to aluminum enclosure (92). Hawver further teaches the plastic is known material for composing a housing ([0014]). Konkle teaches (col. 5 lines 55-65) a similar system wherein a plastic housing has the known advantage of reduced weight. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time of the invention to modify Hawver to try the known use of a plastic housing for the benefit of reducing the weight.
Regarding claim 2, Hawver teaches a conductive material covering (116) the rigid component and electrically connected to the conductive coating ([0084]-[0085]; Figs. 9C and 11).
Regarding claim 3, Hawver teaches the conductive coating is disposed between the rigid component and the plastic housing ([0084]-[0085]; Figs. 10A and 11).
Regarding claim 4, Hawver teaches the plastic housing comprises a groove (126); and the rigid component is disposed in the groove ([0095] screws through 126 used to mount cover 80).
Regarding claim 5, Hawver teaches a conductive material (118) disposed over the groove and the one rigid component and electrically connected to the conductive coating.
Regarding claim 7, Hawver teaches including a battery ([0005]), having the plastic housing is a continuous structure with a first opening configured to receive the front plate and a second opening (Figs. 10A and 11), and an access port with connections disposed in the secondary opening (100). Hawver is silent regarding the position of the battery and contacts of the battery. However, the Examiner is taking Official Notice that including external batteries is well known in the art for the benefit of easy transitioning of batteries to extend use period of a device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to have the battery contacts are disposed in the second opening so that the battery is external to the housing for the benefit of easy transitioning of batteries to extend use period of the detector.
The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement(s) is/are taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate (See MPEP 2144.03(c)).
Regarding claim 8, Hawver teaches the conductive coating comprises a conductive paint (see electrodeposition).
Regarding claim 10, Hawver teaches the conductive coating has a thickness of about 25 micrometers ([0103]). 100 micrometers is a known thickness of a coating of which the Examiner takes Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time of the invention to modify Hawver to try having the conductive coating having a thickness of about 100 micrometers for the benefit of increased protection. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify Hawver to try having the conductive coating having a thickness of between about 100 micrometers to 300 microns, since it has been held that
discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement(s) is/are taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate (See MPEP 2144.03(c)).
Regarding claim 11, Hawver teaches conductive elastically deformable material (84) electrically connected between the two- dimensional sensor array and at least one of the conductive coating or the front plate.
Regarding claim 12, Hawver teaches the two-dimensional sensor array is electrically connected to the electromagnetic interference shield through at least two electrical connections (see access port 100).
Regarding claim 14, Hawver teaches a conductive gasket (see conductive film and foam [0077] form a gasket) disposed between the front plate and the plastic housing and electrically connected to the front plate and the conductive coating and sealing an interface between the front plate and the plastic housing.
Regarding Claim 20, Hawver teaches an x-ray system, comprising: an x-ray source configured to generate x-rays; and an x-ray detector of claim 1 disposed to receive the x-rays from the x-ray source (for example Fig. 7).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawver (US 20100246771) in view of Konkle (US 8,680,475) in view of Nakano et al. (US 2011/0236655).
Regarding claim 9, Hawver teaches the coating however does not teach a coating disposed on the conductive paint. Nakano teaches the known use of a coating (clear 8) on a painted layer (5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time of the invention to modify Hawver to include the use of a coating on the paint for the benefit of protecting the coating.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawver (US 20100246771) in view of Konkle (US 8,680,475) in view of Samson (US 9,700,112).
Regarding claim 15, Hawver teaches the enclosure; however, does not teach the use of a corner bumper. Corner bumpers are a known means to protect electronics from damage. Samson teaches a corner bumper (12A), comprising: a tip formed from a first material (exterior coating); and a body formed from a second material different (resin see col. 3 lines 40 -50) from the first material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to include a corner bumper for the benefit of protecting the apparatus from damage.
Regarding claim 16, Samson further teaches the first material is rubber (col. 3 line 46); and the second material is impact-resistant plastic (see ballistic plastic).
Regarding claim 17, Samson further teaches the corner bumper is integrally formed (see unitary construction).
Regarding claim 18, Samson teaches the corner bumper is removably (col. 2 line 2 ) attached.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Jadrich et al. (US 2007/0272873) teaches the use of an antenna (for example 428) electrically connected to the two-dimensional sensor array; wherein the antenna is disposed within the enclosure (Fig. 2 or 5 for example) such that a wall of the housing is disposed between the antenna and a region external to the enclosure.
Einzinger et al. (US 11,839,133) teaches a detector housing that includes an antenna structurally coupled and electrically isolated by one-or more non-conductive segments of the sidewalls (col. 4, lines 16-26).
The prior art of record does not disclose or reasonably suggest, along with the other claimed limitations, an x-ray detector comprising: namely at least a portion of the wall of the plastic housing between the antenna and the region external to the enclosure does not include the conductive coating.
Claim 19 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not disclose or reasonably suggest, along with the other claimed limitations, a method of forming an x-ray detector comprising: namely, electrically connecting an antenna to the two-dimensional sensor array, wherein the antenna extends between the plastic housing and the conductive coating.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carolyn Fin whose telephone number is (571)270-1286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
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.
/CAROLYN FIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights