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 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) 1 – 3, 8, and 15 – 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokoyama (US 9,977,135 B2).
With respect to independent claim 1, Yokoyama teaches a method implemented on at least one machine each of which has at least one processor and at least one storage device for controlling an imaging device, comprising:
applying a voltage a bias voltage in column 17, line2 – 3 on a semiconductor crystal a polycrystalline silicon or amorphous silicon in column 5, lines 7 - 10 of a detector as shown in Fig. 2 of the imaging device;
obtaining a current in column 17, line 4 of the semiconductor crystal;
determining, based on the voltage, the current, and at least one preset relationship exposure dose based on current as in column 15, lines 12 – 13, at least one parameter exposure dose in column 3, lines 37 – 38 of the semiconductor crystal; and
calibrating and/or controlling the imaging see column 4, lines 15 – 25 and column 8, line 44 – column 9, line 2 device based on the at least one parameter.
With respect to independent claim 15, as discussed in the rejection justification to claim 1 above Yokoyama teaches a method implemented on at least one machine each of which has at least one processor and at least one storage device for detecting an X-ray radiation dose, comprising: irradiating a first semiconductor crystal of a detector using an X-ray generated by a tube; obtaining a voltage of the first semiconductor crystal and a photocurrent of the first semiconductor crystal, the photocurrent being generated by an irradiation of the X-ray on the first semiconductor crystal; and determining, based on the voltage, the photocurrent, and a preset relationship, a radiation dose received by the first semiconductor crystal.
With respect to dependent claim 16, as discussed in the rejection justification to claim 1 above Yokoyama teaches wherein the obtaining a voltage of the first semiconductor crystal and a photocurrent of the first semiconductor crystal includes: applying a voltage on the first semiconductor crystal; and measuring the photocurrent under an application of the voltage.
With respect to dependent claim 2. Yokoyama teaches in column 17, lines 7 – 10 wherein the current includes a photocurrent generated by X-ray irradiation on the semiconductor crystal, and the at least one parameter includes a radiation dose received by the semiconductor crystal.
With respect to dependent claims 3 and 17, Yokoyama teaches wherein the at least one preset relationship includes a relationship indicating a variation of a resistivity of the semiconductor crystal or the photocurrent with the radiation dose see column 17, lines 7 – 10.
With respect to dependent claim 8, Yokoyama teaches in Fig. 3 wherein the voltage is applied intermittently Vg1.
With respect to dependent claim 18, Yokoyama teaches in column 17, lines 1 – 12 wherein the determining, based on the voltage, the photocurrent, and a preset relationship, a radiation dose received by the first semiconductor crystal includes: determining the resistivity based on the voltage and the photocurrent, and determining the radiation dose based on the resistivity and the preset relationship; or determining the radiation dose based on the photocurrent generated under a fixed voltage and the preset relationship.
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.
Claim(s) 4 – 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama, and further in view of Murata (US 2013/00823337 A1)
The teaching of Yokoyama has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 4, Yokoyama is silent with wherein the current includes a dark current generated in the semiconductor crystal in response to the voltage, and the at least one parameter includes a temperature of the semiconductor crystal.
In paragraph [0010], Murata, a pertinent art, teaches dark current relates to the temperature of detector. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Yokoyama in order to determine temperatures of desired detectors. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 5, Yokoyama is silent with wherein the at least one preset relationship includes a relationship indicating a variation of a resistivity of the semiconductor crystal or the dark current with the temperature.
In paragraph [0010], Murata, a pertinent art, teaches dark current relates to the temperature of detector. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Yokoyama in order to determine temperatures of desired detectors. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 13, 19, and 21 – 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama modified by Murata, and further in view of Taherion (US 2022/0107431 A1)
The teaching of Yokoyama modified by Murata has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 6, Yokoyama is silent with wherein the calibrating and/or controlling the imaging device based on the at least one parameter includes: adjusting, based on the temperature of the semiconductor crystal, a heating device and/or a heat dissipation device of the imaging device to ensure that the temperature of the semiconductor crystal is within a preset temperature range.
In paragraph [0044], Taherion, a pertinent art, teaches obtaining temperature based on the dark current and also teaches in paragraph [0025] a cooling system. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Yokoyama modified by Murata in order to determine the temperature of desired detector via dark current and to initiate cooling the detector. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 7, Yokoyama teaches in column 17, lines 7 – 10 wherein the voltage includes a first voltage applied on a first moment, the at least one parameter includes a radiation dose received by the semiconductor crystal corresponding to the first voltage but is silent with and a second voltage applied on a second moment, a temperature of the semiconductor crystal corresponding to the second voltage, and the first moment is different from the second moment, and the first voltage and the second voltage are different.
As discussed above, Taherion teaches obtaining dark current relating to temperatures of detectors. Therefore, choosing the first moment and second moment at different times and the different voltages within the ordinary skilled in the art. 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 13, Yokoyama is silent with adjusting a hardware parameter of the X-ray detector based on a temperature of the semiconductor crystal.
As discussed above Taherion teaches In paragraph [0044], Taherion, a pertinent art, teaches obtaining temperature based on the dark current and also teaches in paragraph [0025] a cooling system. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Yokoyama in order to cool X-ray detector. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to independent claim 19, as discussed above in the rejection justification to claim 1 and claim 6, Yokoyama modified by Teherion teaches a method implemented on at least one machine each of which has at least one processor and at least one storage device for detecting a temperature of an X-ray detector, comprising: obtaining a voltage of a semiconductor crystal and a dark current of the semiconductor crystal, the dark current being generated in the semiconductor crystal under a voltage applied on the semiconductor crystal; and determining, based on the voltage, the dark current, and a preset relationship, a temperature of the semiconductor crystal.
With respect to dependent claim 21, as discussed above Teherion teaches wherein the preset relationship indicates a variation of a resistivity of the semiconductor crystal or the dark current with the temperature.
With respect to dependent claim 22, as discussed above Taherion teaches wherein the determining, based on the voltage, the dark current, and a preset relationship, a temperature of the semiconductor crystal includes: determining the resistivity based on the voltage and the dark current; and determining the temperature of the semiconductor crystal based on the preset relationship and at least one of the resistivity or the dark current.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama, and further in view of Shahar (US 2017/0350993 A1).
The teaching of Yokoyama has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 10, Yokoyama is silent with using a light to irradiate the semiconductor crystal to eliminate or reduce an instability of the semiconductor crystal.
In paragraph [0089], Shahar teaches infrared light source to irradiate the semiconductor detector in order to reduces polarization effects. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Yokoyama in order to enhance detection efficiencies of semiconducting detectors by a known method. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 11 – 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama, and further in view of Erler (US 2019/0235101 A1).
The teaching of Yokoyama has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 11, Yokoyama is silent with wherein the calibrating and/or controlling the imaging device based on the at least one parameter includes: calibrating a performance of the detector based on the radiation dose.
Erler, a pertinent art, teaches in paragraph [0010] a radiation dose determination in order to rule out a decrease in the image quality. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Yokoyama so as to have the limitation of claim 11 in order to determine whether imaging detectors are not defective. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 12, Yokoyama is silent with but Erler teaches in paragraph [0010] measuring a radiation dose rules out defective detectors. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Yokoyama modified by Erler so as to have “wherein the calibrating a performance of the detector based on the radiation dose includes: calibrating a hardware component of the detector based on the radiation dose, wherein the hardware component includes at least one of a first semiconductor crystal, a second crystal of the detector, or a circuit of the detector; and/or calibrating an output signal of the detector based on the radiation dose, wherein the output signal includes at least one of an output signal corresponding to the first semiconductor crystal, an output signal corresponding to the second crystal, or an output signal corresponding to the circuit” in order to determine whether any detector component(s) is defective. 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 9 is 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 9, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the applying the voltage intermittently includes: setting a time interval between different view angles or view angle ranges of an imaging process of the imaging device; and applying the voltage within one or more view angles or one or more view angle ranges, or within the time interval.
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