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
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagawa (US 2014/0254756), and further in view of Koyanagi (US 2012/0074331) and Ushikura et al. (US 2022/0082714)(“Ushikura”).
With regards to claim 1, Tagawa discloses an X-ray imaging apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
a radiation detector (FIG. 2; [0028]; “…radiation imaging apparatus 100 includes an X-ray sensor panel (radiation sensor) 103…”) having flexibility ([0028]; “…the X-ray sensor panel 103 is connected to an electrical circuit board 106 fixed to the supporting member 104 via a flexible substrate 105.”);
a support base configured to support the radiation detector ([0028]; “The X-ray sensor panel 103 is provided with a rigid supporting member 104 bonded to the opposite side surface of the X-ray incidence surface ... the X-ray sensor panel 103 is connected to an electrical circuit board 106 fixed to the supporting member 104 ...”);
a case (housing 101) housing the radiation detector 103;
an internal component configured to drive the radiation detector ([0028]; “The electrical circuit board 106 controls the X-ray sensor panel 103 ... power supply apparatus 420,…a battery provided in the radiation imaging apparatus 100 supplies power to each unit.”).
Tagawa teaches of two recessed portions 202 that form a holding portion of a connector 200 ([0034]; FIG. 4). Further, the holding portion is connected to a cable 300 which is used to transmit signals to an electrical circuit board 106 via wiring 107 (Abstract; [0035][0036]). [0035] teaches that the connector 200 can unintentionally become detached due to an applied force on the cable 300. By having the connector using a holding portion, it makes it more difficult for the said connector to become detached by an applied force.
Tagawa do not specifically disclose;
a holding unit,
wherein the holding unit is formed by a member capable of absorbing a deviation in relative position caused by a difference between a bending rigidity of the internal component and a bending rigidity of a configuration when a deflection occurs in the configuration including the radiation detector, the support base, and the case.
In the same field of endeavor, Koyanagi discloses an electronic cassette for radiographic imaging (Abstract; FIG. 1)). Koyanagi teaches of a holding base support 7 that supports an imaging detection panel 31 and holds various kinds of electric circuit boards such as the driving/reading circuit 33 (the reading circuit unit and driving circuit unit) and a control circuit unit 4 which controls electric signals [0020]. The reference further teaches “ … in consideration of a reduction in weight in addition to ensuring rigidity described above, the holding base 7 is formed from a laminated plate (carbon fiber laminated plate) made of a carbon fiber composite with a bending elasticity of 140 Gpa or more. As compared with the holding base 7 made of a uniform metal (for example, an aluminum alloy or magnesium alloy), this arrangement can obtain a mass about 2/3 that of the holding base 7 made of the aluminum alloy, a maximum deflection amount about twice that of the holding base 7 made of the aluminum alloy, and a rigidity about three times that of the holding base 7 made of the magnesium alloy.” [0022].
In view of Koyanagi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Tagawa with a holding base formed of a carbon fiber laminated plate that has a bending elasticity/rigidity capable of absorbing a deviation in the position of the internal component (flexible circuit board).
Koyanagi teaches of a flexible circuit board 32 and the holding base/carbon fiber laminated plate having a bending elasticity of 140 Gpa or more [0022], however, modified Tagawa do not disclose the radiation detector and the case having bending rigidity of a certain configuration when deflected.
In the same field of endeavor, Ushikura discloses a radiation that includes sensor substrate (Abstract; FIG. 4). Ushikura teaches that the base material 11 of the sensor substrate 12 can be relatively soft and easily deflected due to irregularities of the radiographic imaging apparatus. The irregularities of the radiographic imaging apparatus’ laminate 19 or the housing 120 are propagated and generated in the sensor substrate 12. The reference goes on to teach “When pressure, impact, or the like is applied to the top plate 120A of the housing 120, such as in a case where a load of the subject is applied, the influence of the irregularities are likely to propagate to the sensor substrate 12, and the irregularities are likely to be generated in the sensor substrate 12 …. the irregularities generated in the sensor substrate 12 appear as image unevenness in a radiographic image obtained by the radiation detector 10X [0073]; The Examiner views the sensor substrate having pixels at a radiation detector having a certain bending rigidity/stiffness based on an applied force such as a load, pressure or impact.)(see also [0090]). Also, the reference discloses a housing (FIG.5; housing 120) that is constructed of carbon or carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP) having a bending elastic modulus of about 20,000 to 60,000 MPa. When capturing a radiographic image, a load is applied to the top plate 120A of the housing 120, to suppress the deflection of the sensor substrate 12 due to the said load, the housing may consist of a material having a bending elastic modulus of 10,000 MPa or more [0090].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Tagawa, with the teachings of Ushikura, and utilize a radiation detector housing/case that have a certain degree of bending rigidity that can suppress the deflection of the sensor substrate (pixels), wherein the suppression is caused by an applied force such as from a load, pressure, and impact.
With regards to claim 2, modified Tagawa discloses the radiation image photographing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the bending rigidity of the configuration (The radiation detector housing /case as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 made of CFRP) is lower than a bending rigidity of the internal component (The flexible circuit board and internal electronics such as TFTs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art know that the CFRP constructed housing would have a lower bending rigidity/stiffness that is able to withstand an applied force that could potentially cause irregularities/damage the internal electronic components. This is discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
With regards to claim 3, Tagawa discloses a radiation imaging system [0002], comprising:
a radiation detector (FIG. 2) having flexibility ([0028]; flexible substrate 105);
a support base configured to support the radiation detector ([0028]; supporting member 104);
a case housing the radiation detector ([0028]; housing 101);
an internal component configured to drive the radiation detector ([0029]; a drive circuit for driving the X-ray sensor panel 103); and
a holding portion [0034].
Tagawa teaches of two recessed portions 202 that form a holding portion of a connector 200 ([0034]; FIG. 4). Further, the holding portion is connected to a cable 300 which is used to transmit signals to an electrical circuit board 106 via wiring 107 (Abstract; [0035][0036]). [0035] teaches that the connector 200 can unintentionally become detached due to an applied force on the cable 300. By having the connector using a holding portion, it makes it more difficult for the said connector to become detached by an applied force.
Tagawa do not specifically disclose;
a holding unit;
wherein the holding unit has a function of reducing a load applied to the internal component caused by a difference between a bending rigidity of the internal component and a bending rigidity of a component when the component including the radiation detector, the support base, and the case is bent recoverable by an applied load, and the internal component is held by at least one of the radiation detector, the support base, and the case via the holding unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Koyanagi discloses an electronic cassette for radiographic imaging (Abstract; FIG. 1). Koyanagi teaches of a holding base support 7 that supports an imaging detection panel 31 and holds various kinds of electric circuit boards such as the driving/reading circuit 33 (the reading circuit unit and driving circuit unit) and a control circuit unit 4 which controls electric signals [0020]. The reference further teaches “ … in consideration of a reduction in weight in addition to ensuring rigidity described above, the holding base 7 is formed from a laminated plate (carbon fiber laminated plate) made of a carbon fiber composite with a bending elasticity of 140 Gpa or more. As compared with the holding base 7 made of a uniform metal (for example, an aluminum alloy or magnesium alloy), this arrangement can obtain a mass about 2/3 that of the holding base 7 made of the aluminum alloy, a maximum deflection amount about twice that of the holding base 7 made of the aluminum alloy, and a rigidity about three times that of the holding base 7 made of the magnesium alloy.” [0022].
In view of Koyanagi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Tagawa with a holding base formed of a carbon fiber laminated plate that has a bending elasticity/rigidity capable of absorbing a deviation in the position of the internal component (flexible circuit board).
Koyanagi teaches of a flexible circuit board 32 and the holding base/carbon fiber laminated plate having a bending elasticity of 140 Gpa or more [0022], however, modified Tagawa do not disclose the radiation detector and the case having bending rigidity of a certain configuration when deflected.
In the same field of endeavor, Ushikura discloses a radiation that includes sensor substrate (Abstract; FIG. 4). Ushikura teaches that the base material 11 of the sensor substrate 12 can be relatively soft and easily deflected due to irregularities of the radiographic imaging apparatus. The irregularities of the radiographic imaging apparatus’ laminate 19 or the housing 120 are propagated and generated in the sensor substrate 12. The reference goes on to teach “When pressure, impact, or the like is applied to the top plate 120A of the housing 120, such as in a case where a load of the subject is applied, the influence of the irregularities are likely to propagate to the sensor substrate 12, and the irregularities are likely to be generated in the sensor substrate 12 …. the irregularities generated in the sensor substrate 12 appear as image unevenness in a radiographic image obtained by the radiation detector 10X [0073]; The Examiner views the sensor substrate having pixels at a radiation detector having a certain bending rigidity/stiffness based on an applied force such as a load, pressure or impact.)(see also [0090]). Also, the reference discloses a housing (FIG.5; housing 120) that is constructed of carbon or carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP) having a bending elastic modulus of about 20,000 to 60,000 MPa. When capturing a radiographic image, a load is applied to the top plate 120A of the housing 120, to suppress the deflection of the sensor substrate 12 due to the said load, the housing may consist of a material having a bending elastic modulus of 10,000 MPa or more [0090].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Tagawa, with the teachings of Ushikura, and utilize a radiation detector housing/case that have a certain degree of bending rigidity that can suppress the deflection of the sensor substrate (pixels), wherein the suppression is caused by an applied force such as from a load, pressure, and impact.
With regards to claim 4, modified Tagawa discloses the radiation image photographing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the bending rigidity of the configuration (The radiation detector housing /case as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 made of CFRP) is lower than a bending rigidity of the internal component (The flexible circuit board and internal electronics such as TFTs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art know that the CFRP constructed housing would have a lower bending rigidity/stiffness that is able to withstand an applied force that could potentially cause irregularities/damage the internal electronic components. This is discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
With regards to claim 5, modified Tagawa discloses a radiation image photographing apparatus comprising:
a radiation detector that is bent recoverable under an applied load (see the rejections of clams 1 and 3 concerning the flexibility of the radiation detector);
a support base configured to support the radiation detector and recoverably bend in accordance with the radiation detector(see the rejections of clams 1 and 3);
a case housing the radiation detector and recoverably bending in accordance with the radiation detector (see the rejections of clams 1 and 3 concerning the flexibility of the radiation detector);
an internal component configured to drive the radiation detector (see the rejections of clams 1 and 3 concerning the flexibility of the radiation detector); and
a holding unit configured to hold the internal component, wherein the holding unit has a function of reducing a load applied from at least one of configurations including the radiation detector, the support base, and the case, by causing a small deviation of a position relative to the radiation detector in the internal component and a large deviation of a position relative to the radiation detector in the internal component when the radiation detector is bent (see the rejections of clams 1 and 3).
The rejection of claim 5 follows the same line of reasoning presented in claims 1 and 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6-14 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:
With regards to claim 6, modified Tagawa do not disclose the radiation image photographing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the holding unit comprises a first member disposed in contact with the internal component, and a second member disposed at a position different from a position of the first member in a direction orthogonal to a bending direction in which the configurations are recoverably bent.
Claims 7-14 are objected due to dependency on objected base claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hoheisel (US 2003/0031296)
Iwakiri et al. (US 2020/0408938)
Jadrich et al. (US 2020/0064501)
Suwa (US 2012/0195409)
Suzuki et al. (US 2016/0299241)
Suzuki et al. (US 10,061,042)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGH H MAUPIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00 pm.
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.
/HUGH MAUPIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884