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 statement (IDS) submitted on 6/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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 1-16 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 1 is indefinite at least because the limitations of lines 8-12 are not clear, with a provided limitation based on a provided limitation based on a provided limitation with relationships that were not separately established. Additionally, lines 13-14 are confusing insofar as it is not clear from the disclosure that the second support member may be fixed to the first support member. It appears in all embodiments that the first and second support members are necessarily detached, creating the gap within the structure that causes the pressure differential that is being mitigated by the claimed invention. The meets and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art.
As best as the Examiner can follow, from a top view downward (in the direction of the incident radiation):
i) there is a region defined by the pixel array;
ii) the electrical connections are along the periphery of the sensor panel, between the pixel array and the outer edge of the sensor panel;
iii) the first support member overlaps with the pixel array; and
iv) the second support member overlaps with the electrical connection portion.
This is the interpretation that will be used.
Claim 14 is indefinite for substantially the same reasons (see least lines 8-11 and 17-18), and shall be similarly interpreted.
Claims 2-13, 15 and 16 are rejected under this paragraph by virtue of their respective dependencies, thus incorporating the indefinite subject matter, and further for failing to remedy any of the noted deficiencies.
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 1-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichimura (US 2016/0181308 A1) in view of Tago (US 6,025,598).
Regarding claim 1, Ichimura discloses a radiation imaging apparatus (Figs.3A-C), including:
a) a sensor panel 310 including a first surface provided with a pixel array 311 and an electrical connection 312 portion, and a second surface on an opposite side to the first surface;
b) a wiring member 130 connected to the electrical connection portion 312; and
c) a support base 142 configured to support the second surface through a first support member 141 and a second support member 341; where
d) an in orthogonal projection to the first surface, the electrical connection portion 312 is provided between a region provided with the first support member 141 provided to as to overlap the pixel array 311 and an outer edge of the sensor panel 310, and the second support member 341 is provided so as to overlap the electrical connection portion 312 (Fig.3B); and where
e) the second support member 341 is fixed to at least one of the second surface and the support base 142 (Fig.3B).
Further regarding claim 1, Ichimura does not specifically disclose a passage extending from the first support member to the outer edge between the second surface and the support base so as to not overlap the second support member in an orthogonal projection to the first surface.
Tago teaches the practice of providing passages 12 extending through supports 5 from inner to outer spaces of the detector structure (Figs.1 and 2; col.3, lines 37-42), where the passages 12 may take the form of gaps between the members 5 (col.3, lines 41-43) and thus would not overlap in a projection orthogonal to the sensor panel surface. In this manner, deviations between the internal pressure within the detector structure and atmospheric pressure are effectively eliminated in order to improve image quality and the longevity of the device (see at least col.5, lines 55-67, and col.6, lines 50-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Ichimura to provide a passage from the first member to the outer edge of the sensor panel so as to not overlap the second support member in an orthogonal projection to the first surface in order to improve image quality and detector longevity by minimizing pressure differentials, as taught by Tago.
With respect to claims 2-4, Ichimura further discloses that (claim 4) the elastic modulus of the second support member 341 is not less than an elastic modulus of the first support member 141 (par.0049).
As such, it then follows that the claimed deflections of claims 2 and 3 are inherent and are anticipated by Ichimura for the same reasons (see at least pars.0046 and 0053, and Figs.4A-4C).
With respect to claims 5-7, Ichimura does not specifically disclose that the second support member includes a plurality of second support members. The second support member 341 is understood to be continuous.
Tago teaches the practice of providing either a continuous support member 5 (Fig.3) or a segmented support member 5 (Fig.2), where the segmented members enable the provision of the gaps 12 between each support member for pressure regulation (col.3, lines 41-43), where the members are provided intermittently (at least due to the gaps 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Ichimura to provide a plurality of second support members 341 intermittently provided so as to surround the pixel array 311 in order to provide the passages for pressure regulation, as taught by Tago.
With respect to claim 8, Ichimura further discloses that the first surface is provided with a plurality of electrical connection portions 312 including the electrical connection portion 312 (Fig.3A), and it follows from the combination with Tago that the plurality of second support members include at least one second support member configured to support not less than two of the plurality of electrical connection portions (as taught by Tago, the support members are essentially continuous except for the narrow gaps 12 between each “bar”, Fig.2, where each bar runs along a full side of the detector).
With respect to claim 10, Ichimura further discloses that the first surface is provided with a plurality of electrical connection portions 312 (Fig.3A), and the second support member 341 supports not less than two electrical connection portions 312 of the plurality of electrical connection portions (Figs.3A-3C).
With respect to claim 11, Ichimura further discloses that the wiring member 130 is provided with a circuit configured to operate the pixel array 311 (par.0036).
With respect to claim 12, Ichimura further discloses a scintillator 120 so as to cover the first surface (Fig.3B).
With respect to claim 13, Ichimura further discloses a radiation imaging system including a processing apparatus configured to process a signal output from the radiation imaging apparatus (Fig.6).
Regarding claim 14, Ichimura discloses a manufacturing method for a radiation imaging apparatus (Figs.4A-C), including:
a) preparing a sensor panel 310 including a first surface provided with a pixel array 311 and an electrical connection portion 312, and a second surface on an opposite side to the first surface (Fig.4A); and
b) fixing the sensor panel 310 to a support base 142 supporting the second surface through a first support member 141 (Fig.4A); where
c) the electrical connection portion 312 is provided between a region provided with the first support member 141 provided so as to overlap the pixel array 311, and an outer edge of the sensor panel 310 in an orthogonal projection to the first surface (Fig.3A);
the method further including:
d) providing a second support member 341 between the second surface and the support base 142 so as to overlap the electrical connection portion 312 to support the electrical connection portion 312 (Fig.4B); and
e) connecting a wiring member 130 to the electrical connection portion 312 (Fig.4C); where
f) the second support member 341 is fixed to at least one of the second surface and the support base 142 (Fig.4B).
Further regarding claim 14, Ichimura does not specifically disclose a passage extending from the first support member to the outer edge between the second surface and the support base so as to not overlap the second support member in an orthogonal projection to the first surface.
Tago teaches the practice of providing passages 12 extending through supports 5 from inner to outer spaces of the detector structure (Figs.1 and 2; col.3, lines 37-42), where the passages 12 may take the form of gaps between the members 5 (col.3, lines 41-43) and thus would not overlap in a projection orthogonal to the sensor panel surface. In this manner, deviations between the internal pressure within the detector structure and atmospheric pressure are effectively eliminated in order to improve image quality and the longevity of the device (see at least col.5, lines 55-67, and col.6, lines 50-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Ichimura to provide a passage from the first member to the outer edge of the sensor panel so as to not overlap the second support member in an orthogonal projection to the first surface in order to improve image quality and detector longevity by minimizing pressure differentials, as taught by Tago.
With respect to claims 15 and 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to inspect the detector, remove a wiring member as a result of the inspection, and replace the wiring member with a new one, as a basic repair protocol known to one of ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include 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 prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation of having at least one electrical connection portion that is not overlapped by a second support member, as required by the combination as claimed. Given the prior art disclosure of the forces involved, the skilled artisan would not leave a given electrical connection portion unsupported in that manner, absent the benefit of Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached PTO-892 unless otherwise stated):
Nakatsugawa (WO 2011/152323 A1) teaches the practice of providing a passage 84 in a bonding layer 80 between an inner space B and an outer space A within the detector in order to enable the detector to maintain equilibrium with atmospheric pressure such that the mechanical integrity of the detector is ensured (Figs.5-7 and 13-15; p.12);
Komasaka (JP 2019-141256 A) teaches the practice of providing a passage for pressure equilibration between spaces within the detector structure and the ambient environment (Fig.4); and
The remaining prior art made of record teaches various aspects of structural means to alleviate mechanical stresses within detector structures.
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