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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitin et al. US 2012/0267519 in view of Heismann et al. US 2009/0121142 and Yanada et al. US 2007/007461.
Regarding claim 1, Nikitin teaches a radiation detector (figs. 6, 7, 9) comprising:
a scintillator (60) including a pair of end surfaces (fig. 7; left and right surfaces) opposing each other in a first direction (fig. 7 horizontal direction), and a first side surface and a second side surface opposing each other in a second direction (fig. 7 vertical direction) intersecting the first direction and coupling the pair of end surfaces (figs. 7, 9; top and bottom surfaces), the scintillator having a rectangular shape when viewed in the first direction (fig. 7);
a first semiconductor photodetector including a first semiconductor substrate disposed to oppose the first side surface (fig. 7 #61 (top); para. 0053 “SiC APDs used as the solid-state photodetectors 51”; Note “solid-state photodetectors 51” is taken to be an error and should be “solid-state photodetectors 61” as the document contains no other reference to an object with the number 51);
a second semiconductor photodetector including a second semiconductor substrate disposed to oppose the second side surface (fig. 7 #61 (bottom));
a first wiring member electrically connected to the first semiconductor photodetector (62; para. 0050 “all power and signal processing circuitry necessary to collect signal from the photodetectors 61 in the array should be on boards 62”); and
a second wiring member electrically connected to the second semiconductor photodetector (62; para. 0050 “all power and signal processing circuitry necessary to collect signal from the photodetectors 61 in the array should be on boards 62”), wherein
a length of the scintillator in the first direction is longer than both of a length of the scintillator in the second direction and a length of the scintillator in a third direction (fig. 7 direction into and out of the page) parallel to the first side surface (figs. 6, 7, 9; the horizontal length of 60 is longer than its height or width),
a length of the first side surface in the first direction is longer than a width of the first side surface in the third direction (figs. 7, 9; the top surface of 60 is longest in the horizontal direction),
a length of the second side surface in the first direction is longer than a width of the second side surface in the third direction (figs. 7, 9; the bottom surface of 60 is longest in the horizontal direction),
the first semiconductor substrate includes a first portion covered with the first side surface (fig. 7; 61 are embedded in a portion of a substrate congruent with the top surface of 60), and a second portion disposed with the first portion in the first direction and exposed from the first side surface (fig. 7; the substrate which embeds 61 extends beyond the horizontal ends of the top surface of 60),
the second semiconductor substrate includes a third portion covered with the second side surface (fig. 7; 61 are embedded in a portion of a substrate congruent with the bottom surface of 60), and a fourth portion disposed with the third portion in the first direction and exposed from the second side surface (fig. 7; the substrate which embeds 61 extends beyond the horizontal ends of the bottom surface of 60),
each of the first semiconductor photodetector and the second semiconductor photodetector includes a photodetection region including a plurality of avalanche photodiodes (para. 0053 “SiC APDs used as the solid-state photodetectors 51”),
the first semiconductor photodetector includes a first electrode (para. 0053 “SiC APDs used as the solid-state photodetectors 51” APD will necessarily and implicitly have anode and cathode electrodes); and a second electrode (para. 0053 “SiC APDs used as the solid-state photodetectors 51” APD will necessarily and implicitly have anode and cathode electrodes),
the second semiconductor photodetector includes a third electrode (para. 0053 “SiC APDs used as the solid-state photodetectors 51” APD will necessarily and implicitly have anode and cathode electrodes); and a fourth electrode (para. 0053 “SiC APDs used as the solid-state photodetectors 51” APD will necessarily and implicitly have anode and cathode electrodes),
the photodetection region included in the first semiconductor photodetector is disposed in the first portion (figs. 7, 9),
the photodetection region included in the second semiconductor photodetector is disposed in the third portion (figs. 7, 9),
the first wiring member includes a conductor electrically connected to the first electrode and a conductor connected to the second electrode (62; para. 0050 “all power and signal processing circuitry necessary to collect signal from the photodetectors 61 in the array should be on boards 62” necessarily and implicitly requires the presence of a conductor connected to the anode and cathode of the APD), and
the second wiring member includes a conductor electrically connected to the third electrode and a conductor connected to the fourth electrode (62; para. 0050 “all power and signal processing circuitry necessary to collect signal from the photodetectors 61 in the array should be on boards 62” necessarily and implicitly requires the presence of a conductor connected to the anode and cathode of the APD).
Nikitin fails to teach the detector further comprises the avalanche photodiodes are arranged to operate in Geiger mode and a plurality of quenching resistors electrically connected in series with one of an anode or a cathode of a corresponding avalanche photodiode of the plurality of avalanche photodiodes; the first and fourth electrodes to which the plurality of quenching resistors included in the first and second semiconductor photodetector are connected in parallel; and the first to fourth electrodes are disposed in the second and fourth portions.
Heismann teaches the detector further comprises the avalanche photodiodes are arranged to operate in Geiger mode (para. 0013) and a plurality of quenching resistors (fig. 3 #18) electrically connected in series with one of an anode or a cathode of a corresponding avalanche photodiode of the plurality of avalanche photodiodes (quenching resistors 18 are connected in series with APD 17); the first and fourth electrodes to which the plurality of quenching resistors included in the first and second semiconductor photodetector are connected in parallel (fig. 3; the array of detection cells 16 are connected in parallel) for the purpose of detecting single photons and that the arrangement of quenching resistors are needed for resetting the detection cell (para. 0015).
Yanada teaches decoupling the readout portion (figs. 5-7 #36) and the sensing portion (figs. 5-7 #33) of a detector and positioning the readout portion outside of a surface of a scintillator (34) in a first direction (horizontal direction) for the purpose of simplifying the assembly of the detector (para. 0034).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the avalanche photodiodes are arranged to operate in Geiger mode and a plurality of quenching resistors electrically connected in series with one of an anode or a cathode of a corresponding avalanche photodiode of the plurality of avalanche photodiodes; the first and fourth electrodes to which the plurality of quenching resistors included in the first and second semiconductor photodetector are connected in parallel; and the first to fourth electrodes are disposed in the second and fourth portions as taught by Heismann and Yanada in the detector of Nikitin for the purpose of detecting single photons and simplifying the assembly of the detector.
Regarding claim 2, Nikitin teaches wherein when viewed in the second direction, the photodetection region included in the first semiconductor substrate has an outline shape corresponding to an outline shape of the first side surface (figs. 6, 7, 9; the outline shape is rectangular), and when viewed in the second direction, the photodetection region included in the second semiconductor substrate has an outline shape corresponding to an outline shape of the second side surface (figs. 6, 7, 9; the outline shape is rectangular).
Regarding claim 5, Nikitin, Heismann, and Yanada do not explitely reach the claim limitations of claim 5. However, the use of bases is common knowledge in the art for providing the well known benefit of improved mechanical strength. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first and second bases in the detector of Nikitin, Heismann, and Yanada for the purpose of improved mechanical strength. The remainder of claim 5 are just an arrangement of terminals which are connected to the electrodes. It has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 6, Nikitin fails to teach a first cover body disposed such that the first semiconductor substrate is positioned between the first cover body and the scintillator; and a second cover body disposed such that the second semiconductor substrate is positioned between the second cover body and the scintillator, wherein each of the first cover body and the second cover body includes at least one of a light reflector and an electrical insulator.
Yanada teaches a first cover body (fig. 3 #16 (left)) disposed such that the first semiconductor substrate (fig. 3 #12 (left)) is positioned between the first cover body and the scintillator (13); and a second cover body(fig. 3 #16 (right)), wherein each of the first cover body and the second cover body includes at least one of a light reflector (fig. 3 “reflection thin film”) and an electrical insulator for the purpose of reducing losses. Yanada does not explicitly teach the second cover body being disposed such that the second semiconductor substrate is positioned between the second cover body and the scintillator. It has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first cover body disposed such that the first semiconductor substrate is positioned between the first cover body and the scintillator; and a second cover body disposed such that the second semiconductor substrate is positioned between the second cover body and the scintillator, wherein each of the first cover body and the second cover body includes at least one of a light reflector and an electrical insulator as taught by Yanada in the detector of Nikitin for the purpose of reducing losses.
Regarding claim 7, Nikitin, Heismann, and Yanada does not explicitly disclose wherein the first wiring member is disposed on the same side as the scintillator relative to the first semiconductor substrate, and the second wiring member is disposed on the same side as the scintillator relative to the second semiconductor substrate, however, it has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 8, Nikitin, Heismann, and Yanada does not explicitly disclose wherein at least a part of the first wiring member and the scintillator are disposed in front of the same surface of the first semiconductor substrate, and at least a part of the second wiring member and the scintillator are disposed in front of the same surface of the second semiconductor substrate, however, it has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 9, Nikitin, Heismann, and Yanada does not explicitly disclose wherein at least a part of the first wiring member and the scintillator are disposed in front of the same surface of the first base, and at least a part of the second wiring member and the scintillator are disposed in front of the same surface of the second base, however, it has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 11, Nikitin teaches the scintillator (60) further includes a pair of third side surfaces (fig. 7 surfaces facing into and out of the page) coupling the pair of end surfaces (left and right surfaces) and coupling the first side surface (top) and the second side surface (bottom).
Nikitin fails to teach a radiation detector array comprising a plurality of radiation detectors disposed one-dimensionally, and any two radiation detectors adjacent to each other, among the plurality of radiation detectors, are disposed such that the third side surface of the scintillator included in one radiation detector and the third side surface of the scintillator included in another radiation detector oppose each other.
Yanada teaches a radiation detector array comprising a plurality of radiation detectors disposed one-dimensionally (figs. 1, 2), and any two radiation detectors adjacent to each other, among the plurality of radiation detectors, are disposed such that the third side surface of the scintillator included in one radiation detector and the third side surface of the scintillator included in another radiation detector oppose each other (figs. 1, 2; third surfaces of adjacent scintillators 13 are opposing) for the purpose of increasing the detection area along one-dimension.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a radiation detector array comprising a plurality of radiation detectors disposed one-dimensionally, and any two radiation detectors adjacent to each other, among the plurality of radiation detectors, are disposed such that the third side surface of the scintillator included in one radiation detector and the third side surface of the scintillator included in another radiation detector oppose each other as taught by Yanada in the detector of Nikitin for the purpose of increasing the detection area along one-dimension.
Regarding claim 12, Nikitin, Heismann, and Yanada does not specifically disclose first semiconductor photodetectors and the second semiconductor photodetectors are integrally formed. However, the fact that the parts are integral is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected result (MPEP 2144). Also, making the parts integral would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because reducing number of parts would decrease the cost of the device and reduce the manufacturing cost and process.
Regarding claim 13, Nikitin fails to teach a radiation detector array comprising a plurality of radiation detectors disposed two-dimensionally in a matrix, wherein each of a plurality of radiation detectors disposed in a row direction of the plurality of radiation detectors is the radiation detector array according to claim 11, and any two radiation detectors adjacent to each other in a column direction of the plurality of radiation detectors are disposed such that either the first semiconductor photodetector or the second semiconductor photodetector included in one radiation detector and either the first semiconductor photodetector or the second semiconductor photodetector included in the other radiation detector oppose each other in the column direction.
Yanada teaches a plurality of radiation detectors disposed two-dimensionally in a matrix (figs. 4, 7), wherein each of a plurality of radiation detectors disposed in a row direction of the plurality of radiation detectors is the radiation detector array according to claim 11 (see claim 11), and any two radiation detectors adjacent to each other in a column direction of the plurality of radiation detectors are disposed such that either the first semiconductor photodetector or the second semiconductor photodetector (12) included in one radiation detector and either the first semiconductor photodetector or the second semiconductor photodetector included in the other radiation detector oppose each other in the column direction (fig. 4; the column direction being the left-right direction) for the purpose of increasing the detection area in two-dimensions.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a radiation detector array comprising a plurality of radiation detectors disposed two-dimensionally in a matrix, wherein each of a plurality of radiation detectors disposed in a row direction of the plurality of radiation detectors is the radiation detector array according to claim 11, and any two radiation detectors adjacent to each other in a column direction of the plurality of radiation detectors are disposed such that either the first semiconductor photodetector or the second semiconductor photodetector included in one radiation detector and either the first semiconductor photodetector or the second semiconductor photodetector included in the other radiation detector oppose each other in the column direction as taught by Yanada with the detector of Nikitin for the purpose of increasing the detection area in two-dimensions.
Regarding claim 14, Nikitin teaches the scintillator (60) further includes a pair of third side surfaces (fig. 7 surfaces facing into and out of the page) coupling the pair of end surfaces (left and right surfaces) and coupling the first side surface (top) and the second side surface (bottom).
Nikitin fails to teach a radiation detector array comprising a plurality of radiation detectors disposed one-dimensionally, and any two radiation detectors adjacent to each other, among the plurality of radiation detectors, are disposed such that the third side surface of the scintillator included in one radiation detector and the third side surface of the scintillator included in another radiation detector oppose each other.
Yanada teaches a radiation detector array comprising a plurality of radiation detectors disposed one-dimensionally (figs. 1, 2), and any two radiation detectors adjacent to each other, among the plurality of radiation detectors, are disposed such that the third side surface of the scintillator included in one radiation detector and the third side surface of the scintillator included in another radiation detector oppose each other (figs. 1, 2; third surfaces of adjacent scintillators 13 are opposing) for the purpose of increasing the detection area along one-dimension.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a radiation detector array comprising a plurality of radiation detectors disposed one-dimensionally, and any two radiation detectors adjacent to each other, among the plurality of radiation detectors, are disposed such that the third side surface of the scintillator included in one radiation detector and the third side surface of the scintillator included in another radiation detector oppose each other as taught by Yanada in the detector of Nikitin for the purpose of increasing the detection area along one-dimension.
Regarding claim 15, Nikitin fails to teach a radiation detector array comprising a plurality of radiation detectors disposed two-dimensionally in a matrix, wherein each of a plurality of radiation detectors disposed in a row direction of the plurality of radiation detectors is the radiation detector array according to claim 11, and any two radiation detectors adjacent to each other in a column direction of the plurality of radiation detectors are disposed such that either the first semiconductor photodetector or the second semiconductor photodetector included in one radiation detector and either the first semiconductor photodetector or the second semiconductor photodetector included in the other radiation detector oppose each other in the column direction.
Yanada teaches a plurality of radiation detectors disposed two-dimensionally in a matrix (figs. 4, 7), wherein each of a plurality of radiation detectors disposed in a row direction of the plurality of radiation detectors is the radiation detector array according to claim 11 (see claim 14), and any two radiation detectors adjacent to each other in a column direction of the plurality of radiation detectors are disposed such that either the first semiconductor photodetector or the second semiconductor photodetector (12) included in one radiation detector and either the first semiconductor photodetector or the second semiconductor photodetector included in the other radiation detector oppose each other in the column direction (fig. 4; the column direction being the left-right direction) for the purpose of increasing the detection area in two-dimensions.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a radiation detector array comprising a plurality of radiation detectors disposed two-dimensionally in a matrix, wherein each of a plurality of radiation detectors disposed in a row direction of the plurality of radiation detectors is the radiation detector array according to claim 11, and any two radiation detectors adjacent to each other in a column direction of the plurality of radiation detectors are disposed such that either the first semiconductor photodetector or the second semiconductor photodetector included in one radiation detector and either the first semiconductor photodetector or the second semiconductor photodetector included in the other radiation detector oppose each other in the column direction as taught by Yanada with the detector of Nikitin for the purpose of increasing the detection area in two-dimensions.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitin et al. US 2012/0267519; Heismann et al. US 2009/0121142; and Yanada et al. US 2007/007461 in further view of Yagi et al. US 2015/0084149.
Regarding claim 4, Nikitin teaches wherein the first semiconductor substrate includes a first surface opposing the scintillator in the second direction and a second surface opposing the first surface in the second direction (figs. 6, 7, 9), the second semiconductor substrate includes a third surface opposing the scintillator in the second direction and a fourth surface opposing the third surface in the second direction (figs. 6, 7, 9; the semiconductor substrate is a 3-d object therefore by having a thickness it has surfaces as described).
Nikitin fail to teach the second surface and the fourth surface include polished surfaces.
Yagi teaches polishing substrates (para. 0023, 0039) for the purpose of thinning the substrate (para. 0023, 0039).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second surface and the fourth surface include polished surfaces as taught by Yagi in the detector of Nikitin, Heismann, and Yanada for the purpose of thinning the substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 10 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:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a reinforcement body disposed between the second portion and the fourth portion, wherein the reinforcement body covers the second portion and the fourth portion and couples the second portion and the fourth portion, along with other claim limitations.
Nikitin et al. US 2012/0267519; Heismann et al. US 2009/0121142; Yanada et al. US 2007/007461; and Yagi et al. US 2015/0084149, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest "a reinforcement body disposed between the second portion and the fourth portion, wherein the reinforcement body covers the second portion and the fourth portion and couples the second portion and the fourth portion", along with other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest wherein the first wiring member and the second wiring member and the first semiconductor substrate and the second semiconductor substrate have flexibility, the flexibility of the first wiring member is higher than the flexibility of the first semiconductor substrate, and the flexibility of the second wiring member is higher than the flexibility of the second semiconductor substrate, along with other claim limitations.
Nikitin et al. US 2012/0267519; Heismann et al. US 2009/0121142; Yanada et al. US 2007/007461; and Yagi et al. US 2015/0084149, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest "wherein the first wiring member and the second wiring member and the first semiconductor substrate and the second semiconductor substrate have flexibility, the flexibility of the first wiring member is higher than the flexibility of the first semiconductor substrate, and the flexibility of the second wiring member is higher than the flexibility of the second semiconductor substrate", along with other claim limitations.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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 on (571)272-2995. The fax number for the organization where this application or processing 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.
/RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884