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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 6/3/2026 was accepted and entered. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-5, 7, 11, 15, and 17-19 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 6/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach nor suggest a rigid component coupled to the plastic housing within the enclosure and configured to increase a rigidity of the plastic housing. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Hawver teaches a rigid component coupled to the plastic housing within the enclosure and configured to increase a rigidity the plastic housing (for example 112; [0095]).
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 and configured to increase a rigidity the plastic housing (for example 112; [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.
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).
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 is 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:
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
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 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