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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/23/2024, 11/14/2024 and 9/16/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 18 is indefinite at least because the phrase “with enhanced spatial resolution” is not defined. The nature of the selective combination of WSF ribbon signals required to achieve such a vague goal is not made clear.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under this paragraph by virtue of their dependence upon claim 18, thus incorporating the indefinite subject matter, and further for failing to remedy any of the noted deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 12, 15-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katagiri (US 2002/0121604 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Katagiri discloses an x-ray detection structure (Fig.1), including:
a) a plurality of scintillator volumes in a spatially periodic arrangement, the plurality of scintillator volumes spaced form each other and forming a scan axis at which x-rays from a scanning beam of x-rays transmitted through a target can be received, the plurality of scintillator volumes configured to produce scintillation photons responsive to receiving the x-rays (pars.0052-0053, the detector is capable of receiving a scanning x-ray beam, being suitable for a variety of high-speed imaging applications, par.0001); and
b) a wavelength-shifting fiber (WSF) ribbon optically coupled to the plurality of scintillator volumes along the scan axis, the WSF ribbon configured to receive scintillation photons from the plurality of scintillator volumes as the scanning beam of x-rays scans and causes at least a subset of scintillator volumes in the scan axis to produce the scintillation photons (par.0054; again, the detector is capable of receiving a scanned x-ray beam as broadly as claimed, where neither the beam nor the target are currently required by the claim; and Fig.1 meets the definition of a scan axis as provided in par.0197 of the originally-filed Specification, “…the scanner axis 110 is, thus, defined by the substantially linear arrangement of the scintillator volumes…”).
With respect to claim 3, Katagiri further discloses one or more light reflectors mechanically fixed with respect to the WSF ribbon and the plurality of scintillator volumes, the one or more light reflectors configured to enhance receipt of the scintillation photons and provide optical isolation (pars.0010 and 0052-0053).
With respect to claim 4, Katagiri further discloses a support structure to which the plurality of scintillator volumes and WSF ribbon are mechanically coupled (all detectors of this sort must have light-tight housings that also provide protection against contamination and mechanical damage).
With respect to claim 5, Katagiri further discloses that each of the scintillator volumes have an entrance surface configured to receive incident x-rays from the scanning beam transmitted through the target and an exit surface configured to pass a portion of the incident x-rays that traverse a thickness of the respective scintillator volume between the entrance and exit surfaces thereof, where the WSF ribbon is a first WSF ribbon optically coupled to the entrance surface of the scintillator volumes (any one of the bundles in the vertical direction), and a second WSF ribbon optically coupled to the exit surface of the scintillator volumes (any corresponding one of the bundles in the horizontal direction, Fig.1).
With respect to claim 7, Katagiri further discloses that each scintillator volume of the plurality of scintillator volumes has a dimension of length, width, and/or thickness on the order of 1mm (2mm thickness and/or pixel pitch of 2mm in vertical and horizontal directions: par.0053).
With respect to claim 8, Katagiri further discloses that each scintillator volume of the plurality of scintillator volumes has a dimension of length, width, and/or thickness between 1mm and 10mm (2mm thickness and/or pixel pitch of 2mm in both vertical and horizontal directions: par.0053).
With respect to claim 12, Katagiri further discloses that the plurality of scintillator volumes is a first plurality of scintillator volumes, the WSF ribbon is a first WSF ribbon, and the scan axis is a first scan axis (one pixel row in either the vertical or horizontal direction, Fig.1); where the detection structure further includes a plurality of detection layers (adjacent pixel rows in either the vertical or horizontal direction, Fig.1), a first detection layer of the plurality of detection layers including the first plurality of scintillator volumes and the first WSF ribbon; and
c) respective detection layers of the plurality of detection layers having respective pluralities of scintillator volumes in respective spatially periodic arrangements, spaced from each other and forming respective scan axes of the scanning beam of x-rays at which x-rays from the scanning beam transmitted through the target can be received, the respective pluralities of scintillator volumes further configured to produce respective scintillation photons responsive to receiving the x-rays; and
d) the respective layers of the plurality of layers further including respective WSF ribbons optically coupled to respective pluralities of scintillator volumes along the respective scan axes, respective WSF ribbons configured to receive respective scintillation photons from respective pluralities of scintillator volumes as the scanning beam of x-rays scans and causes at least respective subsets of respective pluralities of scintillator volumes in the respective scan axes to produce the scintillation photons (Fig.1).
With respect to claims 15-17, Katagiri further discloses a detection system (Figs.29-30) having the detector structure (Fig.1) and a plurality of multi-channel PMTs optically coupled to respective ends of respective WSF ribbons of respective layers (Fig.30), the plurality of photodetectors configured to detect the respective scintillation photons carried by the respective WSF ribbons and to produce respective signals responsively (Fig.30).
Regarding claim 21, Katagiri discloses a method of manufacturing an x-ray detection structure, including:
a) situating a plurality of scintillator volumes in a spatially periodic arrangement, spaced from each other, thus forming a scan axis at which x-rays from a scanning beam of x-rays transmitted through a target can be received, the scintillator volumes configured to produce scintillation photons responsive to receiving the x-rays (pars.0052-0053, the detector is capable of receiving a scanning x-ray beam, being suitable for a variety of high-speed imaging applications, par.0001); and
b) optically coupling a wavelength-shifting fiber (WSF) ribbon to the plurality of scintillator volumes along the scan axis such that the WSF ribbon can receive scintillation photons from the plurality of scintillator volumes via the optical coupling as the scanning beam of x-rays scans over the scan axis (par.0054; again, the detector is capable of receiving a scanned x-ray beam as broadly as claimed, where neither the beam nor the target are currently required by the claim; and Fig.1 meets the definition of a scan axis as provided in par.0197 of the originally-filed Specification, “…the scanner axis 110 is, thus, defined by the substantially linear arrangement of the scintillator volumes…”).
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 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.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katagiri, as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claims 9 and 10, the skilled artisan will select the scintillator material based on the desired characteristics, including the absorption of the incident radiation, the wavelength of the scintillator photons, and the decay time, among other parameters. Katagiri teaches that the scintillator needs to be very fast, with the first example having a fluorescence life of 3.3ns (par.0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Katagiri to have one or more of the listed scintillator materials that meets the desired criteria, based on availability and cost constraints, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 11, the claim is directed to a product by process limitation. The limitation carries no patentable weight aside from the general characteristics that the process confers upon the product (MPEP 2113). In this case, any cutting tool capable of millimeter precision is sufficient, such as Katagiri stating that “a diamond cutter or the like” may be used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Katagiri to use laser or water jet cutters based on availability and cost constraints, particularly with the known advantages and ubiquitous applications of laser cutting for depth control and minimal thermal stress, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6, 13, 14, 18-20 and 22 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 claims 2, 13 and 22, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation of having one or more spacers situated between respective pairs of adjacent scintillator volumes in the scan axis direction, where the spacers are configured to be substantially transparent to x-rays and to transmit x-rays from the scanning beam transmitted through the target, as required by the combinations of features as claimed in each claim. While air gap separation for optical isolation among scintillators is generally known, Katagiri specifically teaches that the reflectors that divide the scintillator into pixels are not only reflective of the scintillator photons for higher detection efficiency, but also opaque to the x-rays in order to improve spatial resolution (par.0010).
With respect to claim 6, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation that the scintillator volume is thicker than the self-attenuation length of the scintillation photons of a scintillator material of the scintillator volume, as required by the combination as claimed. The prior art uses reflectors to optimize efficiency, with Katagiri also using fibers on both opposing faces of the scintillators in order to spatially identify the location of the incident radiation, which essentially teaches against a scintillator thicker than the self-attenuation length.
With respect to claim 14, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation that each scintillator volume of the plurality of scintillator volumes of a respective layer is offset along a direction of the scan axis, from all other scintillator volumes of other layers of the plurality of layers, as required by the combination of features as claimed. Any such staggering by Katagiri, either in the planar direction or depth direction (the claim does not specify), would negate the function of the disclosed 2D imager.
Couture et al. (US 2019/0391280 A1) teaches a similar staggered arrangement of scintillation detection by WSFs along a scan axis with a stack of detector layers (essentially applying the negative of the claimed arrangement, by having contiguous volumes A - D with staggered windows 1590 through the reflector layer of each detection layer along the scan axis for optical coupling to the respective WSF, Fig.15C); however, the scintillators themselves are not staggered, where every segment A - D generates photons.
With respect to claim 18, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation of selectively combining the respective signals from the respective WSF ribbons for positions of the scanning x-ray beam along the respective scan axes, to create a combined signal representing a scan of the target, as required by the combination of features as claimed. The function of the signal combiner now incorporates the effects of the x-ray beam, if not the beam nor the x-ray source per se, and in this case, any such combination by Katagiri would negate the spatial resolution due to combining pixels.
Couture et al. (US 2019/0391280 A1) teaches a similar selective combination of signals due to having a substantially similar scanning x-ray imaging system; however, instead of the scintillators being staggered, openings in the reflector layer are staggered for optical coupling to the corresponding WSF (Fig.15C).
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to by virtue of their dependence upon claim 18, thus incorporating the combination of allowable features.
Claims 24-26 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: as noted above, the prior art teaches most aspects of the claimed invention; however, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests a plurality of spacers in the scintillator sub-layer in a spatially periodic arrangement in the scan axis, one or more respective spacers of the plurality of spacers being situated between respective pairs of adjacent scintillator volumes of the plurality of scintillator volumes, the spacers being configured to be substantially transparent to x-rays and to transmit x-rays from the scanning beam transmitted through the target, as required by the combination of features as claimed in claim 24. While air gap separation for optical isolation among scintillators is generally known, Katagiri specifically teaches that the reflectors that divide the scintillator into pixels are not only reflective of the scintillator photons for higher detection efficiency, but also opaque to the x-rays in order to improve spatial resolution (par.0010).
Couture et al. (US 2019/0391280 A1) teaches a similar scanning x-ray imaging system; although it is a negative image of sorts of the claimed invention, where the scintillators/wavelength-shifting volumes A - D are contiguous and the optical couplings with the respective WSFs are spatially periodic in the scan direction through openings 1590 in the reflector layer (Fig.15C).
Claims 25 and 26 are allowed by virtue of their dependence upon claim 24, thus incorporating the combination of allowable features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US patent to Groh teaches a scintillation/WSF x-ray detector, while the remaining US patent documents to Katagiri teach various aspects of scintillator/WSF detector arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R ARTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2485. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6:30pm.
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 on 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.
THOMAS R. ARTMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/THOMAS R ARTMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884