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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of informalities, which appear to be minor draft errors causing grammatical and/or antecedent basis issues.
As noted in the following format (location of objection: suggestion for correction), the following objections may be overcome by making the corresponding corrections: (claim 1, line 5, “scintillator.;”: deleting the period after scintillator) and (claim 2, line 2, “one or more of;”: replacing the semi-colon with a colon).
Any dependent claim of the claim(s) with the noted objections above is also objected to by virtue of its claim dependency. For purposes of examination, the claims have been treated as such with the correction(s). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “imaging detector” in the preamble of claims 1-10 is used by the claim to mean “an x-ray source and an x-ray sensor,” while the accepted meaning is “only an x-ray sensor without the x-ray source.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the system" twice. Claim 1 also recites the limitation "the device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng et al. (US 2011/0096904; hereinafter Tseng) in view of Miller et al. (US 5006713; hereinafter Miller).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Tseng discloses a non-destructive x-ray imaging detector (with 16), comprising: an x-ray source (34); an x-ray sensor (16); a fiber optic faceplate (FOP) (13) to protect the sensor; and a scintillator (14); and a data collection and storage device (par. 58: computer). Also note that recitations (i.e., that monitors an open-air signal of the imaging detector and a signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the system at multiple times; wherein; a first one of the open-air signals of the imaging detector and a first one of the SNR are compared to successive ones of the open-air signals and SNR to indicate degradation of the system, thereby providing the user of the device an indicator of a need to replace the scintillator) with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from prior art if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. Therefore, these claim recitations do not have patentable weight.
However, Tseng fails to disclose a field-replaceable scintillator.
Miller teaches a field-replaceable scintillator (col. 2:1-5).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Tseng with the teaching of Miller, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for quick and easy replacement when there is damage (Miller: col. 2:1-5).
Furthermore, since the Examiner finds that the prior art (e.g., Tseng) contained a “base” upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”, and since the Examiner finds that the prior art (e.g., Miller) contained a “comparable” system that has been improved as recited in the claimed invention, the Examiner thus finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique (of Miller) to the “base” (of Tseng) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, such a claimed combination would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 2, recitations (i.e., wherein: a threshold level to replace the scintillator is established based on one or more of; a signal slope calculated from successive measurements of the open-air signal, conversion gain, and shot noise correlation) with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from prior art if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. Therefore, these claim recitations do not have patentable weight.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Tseng discloses wherein: the FOP (13) is off-axis relative to the x-ray source (34).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng and Miller as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2017/0115406; hereinafter Li).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Tseng as modified above suggests claims 1 and 11.
However, Tseng fails to disclose wherein: the x-ray sensor is a time-delay integration (TDI) sensor.
Li teaches wherein: the x-ray sensor is a time-delay integration (TDI) sensor (par. 20).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Tseng with the teaching of Li, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for increasing signal levels (Li: par. 19).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Li teaches wherein: the x-ray sensor is a charge-coupled device (CCD) sensor (par. 20).
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng and Miller as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Narendran et al. (US 5594819; hereinafter Narendran).
Tseng as modified above suggests claims 1 and 11.
However, Tseng fails to disclose wherein: the FOP is radiation hardened to mitigate formation of browning centers.
Narendran teaches wherein: the FOP is radiation hardened to mitigate formation of browning centers (col. 8:20-25).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Tseng with the teaching of Narendran, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for reducing measurement issues (Narendran: col. 8:20-25).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng and Miller as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Singh et al. (US 11103207; hereinafter Singh).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Tseng as modified above suggests claims 1 and 11.
However, Tseng fails to disclose wherein: the scintillator is a columnar CsI scintillator.
Singh teaches wherein: the scintillator is a columnar CsI scintillator (claim 12).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Tseng with the teaching of Singh, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for faster response time (Singh: col. 2:65-67).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Singh teaches wherein: the scintillator is a low afterglow CsI scintillator (claim 12).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng and Miller as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Friedman (US 2020/0108278).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Tseng as modified above suggests claims 1 and 11.
However, Tseng fails to disclose wherein: a plurality of scintillators are provided on a movable plate, the plate being moved to expose a new one of the scintillators.
Friedman teaches wherein: a plurality of scintillators are provided on a movable plate, the plate being moved to expose a new one of the scintillators (with 1240/1241).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Tseng with the teaching of Friedman, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for more options (Friedman: par. 119).
Also note that recitations (i.e., when an original one of the scintillators is determined to be degraded to a point exceeding a preset threshold) with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from prior art if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. Therefore, these claim recitations do not have patentable weight.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Tseng as modified above suggests claims 1 and 11. Tseng further discloses wherein: scintillator material (14) is formed, such that the scintillator is across the FOP (13).
However, Tseng fails to disclose wherein: scintillator material is formed onto a thin, flexible scintillator film, the scintillator film being wound onto a first supply reel and then fed to a second take-up reel, such that the scintillator film is advanced in stages across.
Friedman teaches wherein: scintillator material is formed onto a thin, flexible scintillator film (860), the scintillator film being wound onto a first supply reel (870) and then fed to a second take-up reel (872), such that the scintillator film is advanced in stages across (par. 102).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Tseng with the teaching of Friedman, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for lowering replacement frequency (Friedman: par. 102).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chih-Cheng Kao whose telephone number is (571)272-2492. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
/Chih-Cheng Kao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884