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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim(s) 16 – 17, 21, and 23 – 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McEvoy (US 2012/0001078 A1).
With respect to independent claim 16, McEvoy teaches in Fig. 1 a scintillation crystal array, comprising:
a plurality of scintillation crystal units 57, and
a gap 83 where 85 is formed between 57s provided between each two adjacent scintillation crystal units, wherein first reflecting layers two of 89 are arranged in a part of the gaps of the scintillation crystal array, second reflecting layers two of 87 are arranged in a part of the gaps, the first reflecting layers are made of a thin film-like material as disclosed in paragraph [0026], and the second reflecting layers are made of an amorphous material epoxy silane hard coats as disclosed in paragraph [0022] .
With respect to dependent claim 17, McEvoy teaches wherein the gaps comprise first gaps arranged in a first direction and second gaps arranged in a second direction as shown in Fig. 4; and a part of intersecting first gaps and second gaps in the scintillation crystal array are respectively provided with the first reflecting layers and the second reflecting layers as shown in Fig. 1; or all intersecting first gaps and second gaps in the scintillation crystal array are respectively provided with the first reflecting layers and the second reflecting layers as shown in Fig. 1.
With respect to dependent claim 21, McEvoy teaches in paragraph [0034] wherein the second reflecting layers comprise one or more of: reflecting layers made of powder materials, reflecting layers made of liquid materials, reflecting layers made of a mixture of powder materials and liquid materials, and reflecting layers made of paste materials.
With respect to dependent claim 23, McEvoy teaches in paragraphs [0024, 0026, 0028] wherein a thickness of the gap is greater than or equal to 0.01 mm and less than or equal to 0.5 mm.
With respect to dependent claim 24, McEvoy teaches wherein the first reflecting layers and the second reflecting layers are distributed in a regular as shown in Fig. 1 or irregular manner.
With respect to dependent claim 25, McEvoy teaches in Fig. 4 A detector, comprising the scintillation crystal array according to claim 16.
With respect to dependent claim 26, as discussed in the rejection justification to claim 16, McEvoy teaches arranging the first reflecting layers in a part of the gaps of the scintillation crystal array, and arranging the second reflecting layers in a part of the gaps, wherein the first reflecting layer is made of a thin film-like material, and the second reflecting layer is made of an amorphous material.
With respect to dependent claim 27, McEvoy teaches in Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 wherein the step of arranging the first reflecting layers in a part of the gaps of the scintillation crystal array, and arranging the second reflecting layers in a part of the gaps comprises: splitting the scintillation crystal array into one or more array units while maintaining two or more adjacent first reflecting layers in a same row or column uninterrupted, each array unit comprising one or more rows of scintillation crystal units; arranging each row of scintillation crystal units of each array unit in a column in a second direction, top surfaces of the scintillation crystal units facing a same side and bottom surfaces facing a same side, and adjacent scintillation crystal units being spaced apart according to a predetermined gap size, so as to obtain a plurality of first single-row crystals; taking a plurality of first reflecting layers with a thickness equal to the predetermined gap size, a length equal to a size of the first single-row crystal in the second direction, and a width equal to a size of the first single-row crystal in a third direction, and bonding each first reflecting layer to a side surface of one first single-row crystal, an edge of the first reflecting layer being flush with an edge of the first single-row crystal, so as to obtain a plurality of second single-row crystals; bonding the plurality of second single-row crystals, a side opposite to the side where the first reflecting layer is located in each second single-row crystal being bonded to the side where the first reflecting layer is located in another second single-row crystal, edges of two adjacent second single-row crystals being flush with each other, and each adjacent scintillation crystal units between two adjacent second single-row crystals share a same axis in the first direction, so as to obtain the array units; after a plurality of array units being manufactured, arranging the plurality of array units into an array, adjacent array units being separated by the predetermined gap size, so as to obtain a first crystal array; filling gaps without the first reflecting layers with the second reflecting layers in the first crystal array in a manner that the second reflecting layers slightly flow over an array surface, flattening the second reflecting layers, and scraping off redundant second reflecting layer materials on the array surface, so as to obtain a second crystal array; and bonding the first reflecting layers to an outer side surface and an incident surface of the second crystal array, an edge of the first reflecting layer being flush with an edge of each surface, so as to obtain the scintillation crystal array after the second reflecting layers are solidified.
With respect to dependent claim 28, MeEvoy teaches in Figs. 1 and 4 wherein the step of arranging the first reflecting layers in a part of the gaps of the scintillation crystal array, and arranging the second reflecting layers in a part of the gaps comprises: manufacturing a plurality of single-row crystals; bonding two sides of each of a plurality of first reflecting layers with a thickness equal to a predetermined gap size, a length equal to a size of the single-row crystals in a second direction, and a width equal to a size of the single-row crystals in a third direction to side surfaces of two adjacent single-row crystals, an edge of the first reflecting layer being flush with an edge of the single-row crystal, so as to obtain a first crystal array; cutting the first crystal array into a plurality of single-row crystals in a first direction, so that each single-row crystal comprises a plurality of scintillation crystal units and a plurality of first reflecting layers sandwiched therebetween; setting the gap between each two adjacent single-row crystals to be the same as the predetermined gap size; filling the gaps between each two adjacent single-row crystals with the second reflecting layers in a manner that the second reflecting layers slightly flow over an array surface, flattening the second reflecting layers, and scraping off redundant second reflecting layer materials on the array surface, so as to obtain a second crystal array; and bonding the first reflecting layers to an outer side surface and an incident surface of the second crystal array, an edge of the first reflecting layer being flush with an edge of each surface, so as to obtain the scintillation crystal array after the second reflecting layers are solidified.
With respect to dependent claim 29, McEvoy teaches wherein the first reflecting layers and the second reflecting layers are distributed in a regular in Fig. 1 or irregular manner.
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.
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) 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McEvoy.
With respect to dependent claim 20, McEvoy is silent with wherein the first reflecting layers comprise one or more of: ESR reflecting layers, polyethylene terephthalate reflecting layers, polytetrafluoroethylene film reflecting layers, aluminum foil reflecting layers and aluminum-plated plastic reflecting layers. However, in paragraph [0023] McEvoy discloses polymetric material as reflecting layer. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of McEvoy in order to have different polymers such as polyethylene terephthalate reflecting layers, polytetrafluoroethylene film reflecting layers as a reflecting layer. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 22, McEvoy is silent with wherein the second reflecting layers comprise one or more of: barium sulfate reflecting layers, titanium dioxide reflecting layers, magnesium oxide reflecting layers and polytetrafluoroethylene powder reflecting layers. However, in paragraph [0025] McEvoy teaches magnesium as reflecting layer. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of McEvoy in order to have magnesium oxide reflecting layers as an obvious choice. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 – 19 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 18, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein in a case where a part of intersecting first gaps and second gaps in the scintillation crystal array are respectively provided with the first reflecting layers and the second reflecting layers, the second reflecting layers are arranged in gaps in the scintillation crystal array except the said part of intersecting first gaps and second gaps.
With respect to dependent claim 19, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein in the first gaps and the second gaps respectively provided with the first reflecting layers and the second reflecting layers, all the first gaps are provided with the first reflecting layers and all the second gaps are provided with the second reflecting layers, or all the first gaps are provided with the second reflecting layers and all the second gaps are provided with the first reflecting layers.
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