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 § 102
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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida (U.S. 2017/0038482).
Regarding claim 7:
Ishida discloses a manufacturing method of a scintillator plate, comprising:
preparing a phosphor including an aggregate of columnar crystals formed on a substrate ([0024]-[0027], plurality of crystals); and
forming a protective film to cover the phosphor by applying and drying a material of the protective film ([0024]-[0027], protective film is dried and polished), wherein surface roughness of the columnar crystals is reduced by planarization treatment before the forming ([0025], polished).
Regarding claim 8:
Ishida discloses the manufacturing method according to Claim 7, wherein the protective film is formed by spin coating ([0025], spin coating).
Regarding claim 9:
Ishida discloses the manufacturing method according to Claim 7, wherein the protective film is formed by spray coating ([0025], spray coating).
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anzai (U.S. 2014/0001367) in view of Oyaizu (U.S. 2006/0054830).
Regarding claim 1:
Anzai discloses a scintillator plate comprising:
a columnar crystal ([0035], columnar crystal) formed on a substrate (Fig. 3, 22) and configured to emit light based on irradiating radiation ([0039], generate light), the columnar crystal having a predetermined column diameter ([0040], diameter); and
a protective film ([0036], film) formed to cover the columnar crystal ([0036], film) and configured to protect the columnar crystal from water vapor ([0036], film),
wherein a thickness of the protective film is less than or equal to 4 times the predetermined column diameter ([0036], film is 20 µm; [0040], diameter is 6 µm; the thickness of the film is less than 4 times the diameter of the column).
However, Anzai fails to disclose wherein an arithmetic average roughness of the protective film is less than or equal to the predetermined column diameter.
Oyaizu teaches wherein an arithmetic average roughness of the protective film is less than or equal to the predetermined column diameter ([0099], roughness is less than the size of the column particle size).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the scintillator of Anzai with the protective film roughness of Oyaizu in order to enhance imaging accuracy by improving radiation sensitivity (Oyaizu; [0010]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Anzai and Oyaizu discloses the scintillator plate according to Claim 1, wherein the protective film coats a sidewall of the columnar crystal by 50% or less of a height of the columnar crystal from a tip of the columnar crystal (Anzai; Fig. 2, 23 is 50% of scintillator 20).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Anzai and Oyaizu discloses the scintillator plate according to Claim 1, wherein the columnar crystal is made of a halogenated alkali metal compound (Anzai; [0035], thallium activated cesium iodide).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Anzai and Oyaizu discloses a radiation detector comprising:
the scintillator plate according to Claim 1 (rejected as above); and
an optical sensor (Anzai; Fig. 2, 21) configured to convert light from the scintillator plate into an electrical charge.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anzai (U.S. 2014/0001367) in view of Oyaizu (U.S. 2006/0054830) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsuru (Jp 2008008741; all notations directed to translated Mitsuru).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Anzai and Oyaizu discloses the scintillator plate according to Claim 1.
However, the combination of Anzai and Oyaizu fails to disclose teaches wherein the protective film is made of silica
Mitsuru teaches wherein the protective film is made of silica (Translated Mitsuru; [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the protective film of Anzai with the material of Mitsuru in order to improve the signal to nose ratio by improving the luminous efficiency (Translated Mitsuru; [0008]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (U.S. 2017/0038482) in view of Yasuaki (JP 2009034428; all notations directed to translated Yasuaki).
Regarding claim 10:
Ishida discloses he manufacturing method according to Claim 7.
However, Ishida fails to disclose wherein the material of the protective film contains polysilazane.
Yasuaki teaches wherein the material of the protective film contains polysilazane (Translated Yasuaki; [0078], polysilazane).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the protective film of Anzai with the material of Yasuaki in order to sensitivity for better spatial resolution (Translated Yasuaki; [0076]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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:
The closest prior arts are Anzai (U.S. 2014/0001367) and Oyaizu (U.S. 2006/0054830)
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Anzai and Oyaizu discloses the scintillator plate according to Claim 1, the thickness of the protective film is greater than or equal to 0.5 times and less than or equal to 4 times the predetermined column diameter ([0036], film is 20 µm; [0040], diameter is 6 µm; the thickness of the film is less than 4 times the diameter of the column).
However, the combination of Anzai and Oyaizu fails to wherein the arithmetic average roughness of the protective film is less than or equal to 10% of the predetermined column diameter.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 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, 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884