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 6/20/2024 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.
Claim 14 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “a planar metal element”, and the claim also recites “in particular a metal sheet” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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, 2, 4, 6, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maerkl (DE 10 2007 033 463 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maerkl discloses a CT detector module (Fig.2), including:
a) at least one x-ray converter element having an upper side and a lower side; where
b) the x-ray converter element has an x-ray detector layer 13, 14 on an upper side;
c) the x-ray converter element is secured to a heat-conducting module carrier 9 at the lower side (par.0045);
d) the x-ray converter element is in heat-conducting contact with at least one metal element 10, 16; and
e) the at least one metal element 10, 16 is in heat-conducting contact with the heat-conducting module carrier 9 (par.0045).
With respect to claim 2, Maerkl further discloses that the lower side of the x-ray converter element is provided at least partially with a metallic covering 16.
With respect to claim 4, Maerkl further discloses that the at least one metal element includes a spring element 9e pressed onto the lower side 12 of the of the x-ray converter element by a restoring force (Fig.2).
With respect to claim 16 (depends from claim 4), Maerkl further discloses that the at least one metal element includes at least one securing device 9f fixed to the heat-conducting module carrier 9, the at least one securing device 9f being prestressed against a metallic covering 16 on the lower side of the x-ray converter element or against a planar metal element 16 arranged at the lower side of the x-ray converter element (Fig.2).
With respect to claim 6, Maerkl further discloses that the at least one metal element includes at least one securing device 9f fixed to the heat-conducting module carrier 9, the at least one securing device 9f being prestressed against a metallic covering 16 on the lower side of the x-ray converter element or against a planar metal element 16 arranged at the lower side of the x-ray converter element (Fig.2).
With respect to claim 13, Maerkl further discloses a CT detector module (Figs.1-2).
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crestani (US 2019/0339402 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Crestani discloses a CT detector module (Figs.2A and 4), including:
a) at least one x-ray converter element having an upper side and a lower side (Fig.2A); where
b) the x-ray converter element has an x-ray detector layer 80,40,20 at the upper side;
c) the x-ray converter element is secured to a heat-conducting module carrier 140 at the lower side;
d) the x-ray converter element is in heat-conducting contact with at least one metal element 90; and
e) the at least one metal element 90 is in heat-conducting contact with the heat-conducting module carrier 140 (Fig.4).
With respect to claim 5, Crestani further discloses that the at least one metal element 90 is secured to the heat-conducting module carrier 140 (Fig.4).
With respect to claim 7, Crestani further discloses that the at least one metal element 90 is inserted in a recess 124 in the heat-conducting module carrier 140 (Figs.2A and 4).
With respect to claim 9, Crestani further discloses that the x-ray converter element includes a base plate 60 having a recess through which the at least one metal element 90 is in direct heat-conducting contact with the x-ray detector layer 20 (Fig.2A, last sentence of par.0032).
With respect to claim 10, Crestani further discloses that the x-ray converter element includes a base plate 60 at the lower side, where the base plate has heat bridges between a lower side of the base plate 60 and the x-ray detector layer 20 at least in a region in which the base plate 60 is in heat-conducting contact with the at least one metal element 90 (Fig. 2A, last sentence of par.0032).
With respect to claim 11, Crestani further discloses that the x-ray converter element includes a base plate 60 at the lower side, the base plate having through-holes forming heat bridges between a lower side of the base plate 60 and the x-ray detector layer 20 (Fig.2A, last sentence of par.0032).
With respect to claim 13, Crestani further discloses a CT device (Fig.1) having at least one detector module (Figs.4-5).
Claims 1, 3, 5, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hackenschmied (US 2007/0278412 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hackenschmied discloses a CT detector module (Fig.3), including:
a) at least one x-ray converter element 28 having an upper side and a lower side; where
b) the x-ray converter element 28 has an x-ray detector layer 34, 36 at the upper side;
c) the x-ray converter element 28 is secured to a heat-conducting module carrier 22 at the lower side;
d) the x-ray converter element 28 is in head-conducting contact with at least one metal element 32 (par.0037); and
e) the at least one metal element is in heat-conducting contact with the heat-conducting module carrier 22.
With respect to claim 3, Hackenschmied further discloses that the at least one metal element 32 is a planar metal sheet 32, the planar metal sheet 32 having a first region abutting the lower side of the x-ray converter element 28 and at a second region abutting the heat-conducting module carrier 22 (Fig.3, par.0041).
With respect to claim 5, Hackenschmied further discloses that the at least one metal element 32 is secured to the heat-conducting module carrier 22 (pars.0040-0042).
With respect to claim 12, Hackenschmied further discloses that the heat-conducting module carrier 22 has cooling ribs 40 (Fig.3).
With respect to claim 13, Hackenschmied further discloses a CT detector module 26 (Figs.1-3).
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 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maerkl in view of Crestani.
With respect to claims 9-11 and 17-20, Maerkl further teaches that the x-ray converter element has a base plate 12 at the lower side.
Maerkl does not specifically disclose that the base plate has means through which the at least one metal element is in direct heat-conducting contact with the x-ray detector layer 13, 14.
Crestani teaches the practice of providing a recess, heat bridge or plated through holes through a base plate 60 such that the at least one metal element 90 is in direct heat-conducting contact with an x-ray detector layer 20 (Fig.2A, last line of par.0032). In this manner, heat is most efficiently transferred from the hottest component of the detector, the ASIC 20 (also the x-ray detector layer 14 of Maerkl), and away from the most heat-sensitive components, the x-ray sensitive layer 80 (also the x-ray detector layer 13 of Maerkl), for optimal artifact-free imaging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Maerkl to have a means through the base plate 12 such that the at least one metal element is in direct heat-conducting contact with the x-ray detector layer in order to improve image quality by directly cooling the components that generate the most heat, as taught by Crestani.
Claims 2, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackenschmied in view of Maerkl.
With respect to claim 2, Hackenschmied does not specifically disclose that the lower side of the x-ray converter element is provided at least partially with a metallic covering.
Maerkl teaches the practice of providing a metallic covering 16 on the lower side 12 of an x-ray converter element 12, 13, 14 in order to improve heat conduction from the lower side 12 of the x-ray converter element for higher image quality (par.0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Hackenschmied to include a metallic covering on the lower side of the x-ray converter element in order to improve image quality, as taught by Maerkl.
With respect to claim 14, dependent upon claim 2, Hackenshmied further discloses that the at least one metal element 32 has a planar metal element 32 which in a first region abuts the lower side of the x-ray converter element 28 and at a second region abuts the module carrier 22 (Fig.3, par.0041).
With respect to claim 15, Hackenschmied, as applied to claim 3 above, does not specifically disclose that the at least one metal element includes a spring element, which is pressed onto the lower side of the x-ray converter element by a restoring force.
Maerkl teaches the practice of providing a spring element 9e which is pressed onto the lower side 12 of the x-ray converter element by a restoring force (par.0048). In this manner, efficient heat transfer is ensured by optimizing the pressure and ensuring even contact with the x-ray converter element, as well as for easy replacement of parts (pars.0043-0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Hackenschmied to include a spring element in order to optimize the thermal contact with the x-ray converter element, as suggested by Maerkl.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crestani, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Luhta (US 2009/0121146 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Crestani further discloses that the at least one metal element includes a thermally conductive adhesive that connects the lower side 60 of the x-ray converter element in a heat-conducting manner to the heat-conducting module carrier 140 (via heat sink 90, par.0032).
Crestani does not specifically disclose that the thermally conductive adhesive may include a solder.
Luhta teaches the common practice of substituting thermally conductive adhesives for solder as a functionally equivalent means of providing a reliable mechanical and thermal connection (last sentence of par.0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Crestani to substitute a solder for a thermally conductive adhesive as a functionally equivalent means of providing the desired thermal and mechanical properties, as taught by Luhta.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining cited prior art (see attached PTO-892) teaches various combinations of thermal and mechanical connections between a detector and a module carrier.
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