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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 5 – 7, and 27 – 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (JP 2014 – 146244 A; cited in the IDS) , and further in view of Danielsson (US 2018/0321394 A1 which corresponds to CN 1110603464 A, cited in the PCT Written Opinion).
With respect to independent claim 1, Takahashi teaches a detector system, comprising:
a plurality of edge-on detector modules as shown in Fig. 5, each edge-on detector module as shown in Fig. 6 of which including:
a silicon substrate 11 including a front side corresponding to a first side of the each edge-on detector module and a rear side corresponding to a second side of the each edge-on detector module;
a plurality of detection elements 16 disposed on the front side of the silicon substrate;
a backside electrode 34 disposed on the rear side of the silicon substrate;
but is silent with an anti-scatter structure disposed on at least one of the first side or the second side of the each edge-on detector module, the anti-scatter structure being configured to prevent or reduce scattering of photons emitted into the silicon substrate;
wherein the silicon substrate, the plurality of detection elements, the backside electrode, and the anti-scatter structure are configured as an integral piece.
Danielsson, a pertinent art, teaches in Fig. 3 two edge-on detector modules 201 and an anti-scatter collimator 203 disposed on at least one of the first side or the second side of the each edge-on detector module, the anti-scatter structure being configured to prevent or reduce scattering of photons emitted into the silicon substrate see paragraph [0027]. When modified by Danielsson, Takahashi modified by Danielsson teaches the “wherein clause”. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Takahashi in order to protect front-sides of each detector module (see paragraph [0027] of Danielsson). This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Takahashi teaches in Fig. 5 wherein the plurality of edge-on detector modules are positioned next to each other and configured to detect X-rays; each edge-on detector module includes an incidence edge adapted to be oriented towards an X-ray source R that generates the X-rays; the front side and/or the rear side of the silicon substrate are substantially parallel to an incidence direction of the X-rays as shown in Fig. 5; or the scattering includes at least Compton scattering.
With respect to dependent claim 5, when modified by Danielsson, Takahashi modified by Danielsson teaches “wherein the anti-scatter structure is disposed on the first side of the each edge-on detector module; the anti-scatter structure includes a plurality of anti-scatter units; and each anti-scatter unit of the plurality of anti-scatter units corresponds to one of the plurality of detection elements” in order to protect the detector elements from X-ray (see paragraph [0027] of Danielsson).
With respect to dependent claim 6, when modified by Danielsson, Takahashi modified by Danielsson teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of anti- scatter units is disposed on a corresponding detection element.
With respect to dependent claim 7, when modified by Danielsson, Takahashi modified by Danielsson teaches wherein the at least one of the plurality of anti-scatter units and the corresponding detection element of the plurality of detection elements have a same shape and/or area size in a plane parallel to the front side of the silicon substrate; and/or the at least one of the plurality of anti-scatter units is disposed on the corresponding detection element through at least one of evaporation or sputtering.
With respect to independent claims 27 – 28, as discussed above in the rejection justification to claim 1 above, Takahashi modified by Danielsson teaches a detector system, comprising at least one edge-on detector module including: a semiconductor substrate configured to transform photons into electrical signals; a plurality of detection elements and a backside electrode that are configured to collect the electrical signals; and an anti-scatter structure configured to reduce or prevent scattering of the photons at least between the at least one edge-on detector module and one or more adjacent edge-on detector modules; wherein the silicon substrate, the plurality of detection elements, the backside electrode, and the anti-scatter structure are configured as an integral piece and an imaging device, comprising at least one edge-on detector module including: a silicon substrate including a front side corresponding to a first side of the each edge-on detector module and a rear side corresponding to a second side of the each edge-on detector module; a plurality of detection elements disposed on the front side of the silicon substrate; a backside electrode disposed on the rear side of the silicon substrate; and an anti-scatter structure disposed on at least one of the first side or the second side of the each edge-on detector module, the anti-scatter structure being configured to prevent or reduce scattering of photons emitted into the silicon substrate; wherein the silicon substrate, the plurality of detection elements, the backside electrode, and the anti-scatter structure are configured as an integral piece.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi modified by Danielsson, and further in view of Glatz (US 2018/0268952 A1).
The teaching of Takahashi modified by Danielsson has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 18, Takahashi is silent with wherein a thickness of at least one of the plurality of anti-scatter units along a direction perpendicular to the silicon substrate is within a range from 10 µm to 1000 µm.
In paragraph [0014], Glatz, a pertinent art, teaches a thickness of approximately 15 – 30 µm for a slat of an anti-scatter grid. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Takahashi modified by Danielsson in order to absorb X-rays. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 – 12, 16 – 17, 19, 21 – 23, and 25 – 26 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 9 and its dependent claims 10 – 11, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein at least one of the plurality of anti-scatter units is disposed on the front side of the silicon substrate and electrically coupled to a corresponding detection element; and the at least one of the plurality of anti-scatter units is configured as a lead-out line of the corresponding detection element.
With respect to dependent claim 12, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein at least one of the plurality of anti-scatter units is disposed on a corresponding detection element; the at least one of the plurality of anti-scatter units is electrically coupled to the corresponding detection element via a conducting material filled in a through hole of the at least one of the plurality of anti-scatter units; the at least one of the plurality of anti-scatter units completely shields the corresponding detection element; and a size of the at least one of the plurality of anti-scatter units is greater than a size of the corresponding detection element in a plane parallel to the front side of the silicon substrate.
With respect to dependent claim 16, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the plurality of anti-scatter units have different thicknesses along a direction perpendicular to the silicon substrate, and a thickness of an anti-scatter unit of the plurality of anti-scatter units is related to a distance between the anti-scatter unit and a source that emits the photons.
With respect to dependent claim 17, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
an insulating layer disposed between the anti-scatter structure and the silicon substrate.
With respect to dependent claim 19, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the anti-scatter structure and the plurality of detection elements are made of a same material, and a thickness of the material is greater than a second threshold; or the plurality of detection elements function as the anti-scatter structure, and a thickness of each of the plurality of detection elements is greater than the second threshold.
With respect to dependent claim 21, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the plurality of detection elements are arranged as a plurality of strips and a plurality of depth segments, and the each edge-on detector module further comprises a groove between at least two adjacent strips of the plurality of strips and a second anti-scatter structure, and wherein the second anti-scatter structure is disposed inside the groove; the second anti-scatter structure is configured to prevent or reduce scattering of photons between the at least two adjacent strips; and the anti-scatter structure is configured to prevent or reduce scattering of photons between the each edge-on detector module and an adjacent detector module of the each edge-on detector module.
With respect to dependent claim 22, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the anti-scatter structure is disposed on the second side of the each edge-on detector module; and the anti-scatter structure is disposed on the backside electrode.
With respect to dependent claim 23, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the anti-scatter structure and the backside electrode are made of a same material, and a thickness of the material is greater than a second threshold; or the backside electrode functions as the anti-scatter structure, and a thickness of the backside electrode is greater than the second threshold.
With respect to dependent claim 25, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the anti-scatter structure is obtained by replacing one or more of the plurality of detection elements, and/or the backside electrode with one or more conductive high atomic number materials.
With respect to dependent claim 26, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the anti-scatter structure is obtained by adding one or more high atomic number materials to the silicon substrate, one or more of the plurality of detection elements, and/or the backside electrode.
Conclusion
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