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 .
Claims 1 – 29 are presented for examination.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Furenlid et al. (US 2022/0211334 A1; pub. Jul. 7, 2022).
Regarding claim 1, Furenlid et al. disclose: An apparatus, comprising: a first photomultiplier (fig.27 item 700(7), para. [0016]-[0018]) having: a first side including a first array of photodiodes (para. [0016]-[0018]); and a second side opposite the first side (fig.27 item 700(7), para. [0016]-[0018]); and a second photomultiplier (fig.27 item 700(8), para. [0016]-[0018]) having: a first side including a second array of photodiodes; and a second side opposite the first side, the second side of the first photomultiplier being directly coupled to the second side of the second photomultiplier in a staggered arrangement (fig.27 items 2752(8) – 2752(12), para. [0020], [0109]).
Regarding claim 3, Furenlid et al. disclose: a printed circuit board is excluded from a stack including the first photomultiplier and the second photomultiplier (para. [0074]).
Regarding claim 6, Furenlid et al. disclose: a scintillator crystal coupled with the first side of the first photomultiplier, the apparatus being configured for use in a positron emission tomography (PET) scanner (para. [0022]).
Regarding claim 12, Furenlid et al. disclose: the first photomultiplier and the second photomultiplier each exclude a glass cover (fig.27).
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 24, 26, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Braeuninger-Wiemer et al. (US 2025/0116787 A1; pub. Apr. 10, 2025).
Regarding claim 24, Braeuninger-Wiemer et al. disclose: An apparatus, comprising: a scintillator crystal (para. [0239]); a first photomultiplier disposed on a first sidewall of the scintillator crystal (para. [0239]); a second photomultiplier disposed on a second sidewall of the scintillator crystal (para. [0239]), the second sidewall being orthogonal to the first sidewall (para. [0239]); and a third photomultiplier disposed on a third sidewall of the scintillator crystal, the third sidewall being parallel to the first sidewall (para. [0239]).
Regarding claim 26, Braeuninger-Wiemer et al. disclose: the second sidewall is on a side of the scintillator crystal opposite a fourth sidewall of the scintillator crystal configured to receive gamma radiation in a positron emission tomography scanner (abstract).
Regarding claim 28, Braeuninger-Wiemer et al. disclose: a fourth photomultiplier disposed on a fourth sidewall of the scintillator crystal, the fourth sidewall being orthogonal to the first sidewall, the second sidewall and the third sidewall; and a fifth photomultiplier disposed on a fifth sidewall of the scintillator crystal, the fifth sidewall being orthogonal to the first sidewall, the second sidewall and the third sidewall, and parallel to the fourth sidewall (para. [0074]-[0075]).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furenlid et al. (US 2022/0211334 A1; pub. Jul. 7, 2022) in view of Frach (US 2024/0385338 A1; pub. Nov. 21, 2024).
Regarding claim 2, Furenlid et al. are silent about: the second side of the first photomultiplier is soldered to the second side of the second photomultiplier.
In a similar field of endeavor Frach discloses: the second side of the first photomultiplier is soldered to the second side of the second photomultiplier (para. [0057]) motivated by the benefits for a compact device.
In light of the benefits for a compact device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Furenlid et al. with the teachings of Frach.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furenlid et al. (US 2022/0211334 A1; pub. Jul. 7, 2022) in view of Van Weeren (US 2021/0306950 A1; pub. Sep. 30, 2021).
Regarding claim 4, Furenlid et al. are silent about: at least one cathode terminal configured to be connected to external circuitry; and at least one anode terminal configured to be connected to the external circuitry.
In a similar field of endeavor Van Weeren discloses: at least one cathode terminal configured to be connected to external circuitry; and at least one anode terminal configured to be connected to the external circuitry (para. [0062]) motivated by the benefits for a compact device.
In light of the benefits for a compact device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Furenlid et al. with the teachings of Van Weeren.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furenlid et al. (US 2022/0211334 A1; pub. Jul. 7, 2022) in view of Daly et al. (US 2019/0067495 A1; pub. Feb. 28, 2019).
Regarding claim 5, Furenlid et al. are silent about: the first photomultiplier is included in a first wafer and the second photomultiplier is included in a second wafer, the first wafer being wafer bonded to the second wafer.
In a similar field of endeavor Daly et al. disclose: a photomultiplier is included in a wafer (para. [0061], [0088]) motivated by the benefits for preventing cracking of the photomultiplier.
In light of the benefits for preventing cracking of the photomultiplier, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Furenlid et al. with the teachings of Daly et al.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furenlid et al. (US 2022/0211334 A1; pub. Jul. 7, 2022) in view of Yorkston et al. (US 2008/0011960 A1; pub. Jan. 17, 2008).
Regarding claim 7, Furenlid et al. are silent about: the scintillator crystal is a first scintillator crystal, the apparatus further comprising: a second scintillator crystal coupled with the first side of the second photomultiplier.
In a similar field of endeavor Yorkston et al. disclose: the scintillator crystal is a first scintillator crystal (fig.7 item 402), the apparatus further comprising: a second scintillator crystal (fig.7 item 420) coupled with the first side of the second photomultiplier (para. [0102]) motivated by the benefits for an improved detective quantum efficiency (Yorkston et al. para. [0040]).
In light of the benefits for an improved detective quantum efficiency as taught by Yorkston et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Furenlid et al. with the teachings of Yorkston et al.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furenlid et al. (US 2022/0211334 A1; pub. Jul. 7, 2022) in view of Flitsch et al. (US 2010/0108893 A1; pub. May 6, 2010).
Regarding claim 8, Furenlid et al. are silent about: the first photomultiplier includes: a first plurality of conductive traces disposed on the second side of the first photomultiplier; and a first plurality of through vias respectively electrically coupling a first portion of the first plurality of conductive traces with the first array of photodiodes; and the second photomultiplier includes: a second plurality of conductive traces disposed on the second side of the second photomultiplier; and a second plurality of through vias respectively electrically coupling a first portion of the second plurality of conductive traces with the second array of photodiodes.
In a similar field of endeavor Flitsch et al. disclose: the photomultiplier includes: a plurality of conductive traces disposed on the second side of the photomultiplier; and a plurality of through vias respectively electrically coupling a first portion of the plurality of conductive traces with the array of photodiodes (para. [0038], [0103], [0144]) motivated by the benefits for providing good Ohmic contact (Flitsch et al. para. [0038]).
In light of the benefits for providing good Ohmic contact as taught by Flitsch et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Furenlid et al. with the teachings of Flitsch et al. to have: the first photomultiplier includes: a first plurality of conductive traces disposed on the second side of the first photomultiplier; and a first plurality of through vias respectively electrically coupling a first portion of the first plurality of conductive traces with the first array of photodiodes; and the second photomultiplier includes: a second plurality of conductive traces disposed on the second side of the second photomultiplier; and a second plurality of through vias respectively electrically coupling a first portion of the second plurality of conductive traces with the second array of photodiodes.
Regarding claim 9, Furenlid et al. and Flitsch et al. disclose: a second portion of the first plurality of conductive traces are respectively electrically coupled with the first portion of the second plurality of conductive traces; and a second portion of the second plurality of conductive traces are respectively electrically coupled with the first portion of the first plurality of conductive traces (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 8).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furenlid et al. (US 2022/0211334 A1; pub. Jul. 7, 2022) in view of Barbi et al. (US 2012/0025074 A1; pub. Feb. 2, 2012).
Regarding claim 10, Furenlid et al. are silent about: a flex connector coupled with the first photomultiplier, the flex connector being configured to connect the first photomultiplier with external circuitry.
In a similar field of endeavor Barbi et al. disclose: a flex connector coupled with the first photomultiplier, the flex connector being configured to connect the first photomultiplier with external circuitry (para. [0085]) motivated by the benefits for high-speed signal integrity.
In light of the benefits for high-speed signal integrity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Furenlid et al. with the teachings of Barbi et al.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furenlid et al. (US 2022/0211334 A1; pub. Jul. 7, 2022) in view of Rose et al. (US 2017/0031038 A1; pub. Feb. 2, 2017).
Regarding claim 11, Furenlid et al. are silent about: the first photomultiplier includes: a first semiconductor die including the first array of photodiodes; and a first glass cover disposed on the first array of photodiodes; and the second photomultiplier includes: a second semiconductor die including the second array of photodiodes; and a second glass cover disposed on the second array of photodiodes.
In a similar field of endeavor Rose et al. disclose: the first photomultiplier includes: a first semiconductor die including the first array of photodiodes; and a first glass cover disposed on the first array of photodiodes; and the second photomultiplier includes: a second semiconductor die including the second array of photodiodes; and a second glass cover disposed on the second array of photodiodes (para. [0018]-[0020]) motivated by the benefits for improved light detection by the photon detector (Rose et al. para. [0014]).
In light of the benefits for improved light detection by the photon detector as taught by Rose et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Furenlid et al. with the teachings of Rose et al.
Claims 13, 15, 17-20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furenlid et al. (US 2022/0211334 A1; pub. Jul. 7, 2022) in view of Yorkston et al. (US 2008/0011960 A1; pub. Jan. 17, 2008) and further in view of Shaw et al. (US 2012/0132817 A1; pub. May 31, 2012).
Regarding claim 13, Furenlid et al. disclose: An apparatus comprising: a scintillator crystal (para. [0022]); a semiconductor die including a first side and a second side opposite the first side, the semiconductor die including a photomultiplier array disposed on the first side (fig.27 shows scintillation detectors 700(7) & 700(8), para. [0016]-[0018], it is known in the art to form a photomultiplier array on a semiconductor die), a carrier disposed on the second side of the semiconductor die, the photomultiplier array being electrically coupled with the carrier (para. [0022] teach a substrate);
Furenlid et al. are silent about: the scintillator crystal being disposed on the first side of the semiconductor die; and a molding material disposed on a sidewall defined by at least one of the semiconductor die or the carrier, the molding material configured to protect the photomultiplier array from moisture ingress.
In a similar field of endeavor Yorkston et al. disclose: the scintillator crystal being disposed on the first side of the semiconductor die (fig.7 items 402 & 420, para. [0102]) motivated by the benefits for an improved detective quantum efficiency (Yorkston et al. para. [0040]).
In light of the benefits for an improved detective quantum efficiency as taught by Yorkston et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Furenlid et al. with the teachings of Yorkston et al.
Yorkston et al. are silent about: a molding material disposed on a sidewall defined by at least one of the semiconductor die or the carrier, the molding material configured to protect the photomultiplier array from moisture ingress.
In a similar field of endeavor Shaw et al. disclose: a molding material disposed on a sidewall defined by at least one of the semiconductor die or the carrier, the molding material configured to protect the photomultiplier array from moisture ingress (para. [0083]) motivated by the benefits for improved protecting while not interfering the operation of the device (Shaw et al. para. [0083]).
In light of the benefits for improved protecting while not interfering the operation of the device as taught by Shaw et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Furenlid et al. and Yorkston et al. with the teachings of Shaw et al.
Regarding claim 15, Furenlid et al., Yorkston et al. and Shaw et al. disclose: the carrier is electrically coupled with the photomultiplier array by at least one wire bond encapsulated in the molding material (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 13, especially fig.13 of Shaw et al. wherein 14 is a protective cover).
Regarding claim 17, Shaw et al. disclose: the molding material includes at least one of epoxy or silicone (para. [0083]) motivated by the benefits for improved protecting while not interfering the operation of the device (Shaw et al. para. [0083]).
Regarding claim 18, Shaw et al. disclose: the molding material extends over at least a portion of the second side of the semiconductor die (para. [0083]) motivated by the benefits for improved protecting while not interfering the operation of the device (Shaw et al. para. [0083]).
Regarding claim 19, Shaw et al. disclose: a perimeter portion of the carrier is partially etched; and the molding material extends over the partially etched perimeter portion of the carrier (para. [0083]) motivated by the benefits for improved protecting while not interfering the operation of the device (Shaw et al. para. [0083]).
Regarding claim 20, Furenlid et al. disclose: An apparatus comprising: a first semiconductor die including a first photomultiplier array (fig.27 shows scintillation detectors 700(7) & 700(8), para. [0016]-[0018], it is known in the art to form a photomultiplier array on a semiconductor die); a second semiconductor die including a second photomultiplier array (fig.27 shows scintillation detectors 700(7) & 700(8), para. [0016]-[0018], it is known in the art to form a photomultiplier array on a semiconductor die), the second semiconductor die being coupled in a stack with the first semiconductor die such that the first photomultiplier array is disposed at a proximal end of the stack and the second photomultiplier array is disposed at a distal end of the stack (fig.27 shows scintillation detectors 700(7) & 700(8), para. [0016]-[0018]);
Furenlid et al. are silent about: a first scintillator crystal disposed on the first semiconductor die at the proximal end of the stack; a second scintillator crystal disposed on the second semiconductor die at the distal end of the stack,
the stack being disposed between the first scintillator crystal and the second scintillator crystal; and an encapsulation material disposed: on a sidewall defined by the first semiconductor die and the second semiconductor die; and between the first scintillator crystal and the second scintillator crystal.
In a similar field of endeavor Yorkston et al. disclose: a first scintillator crystal disposed on the first semiconductor die at the proximal end of the stack; a second scintillator crystal disposed on the second semiconductor die at the distal end of the stack the stack being disposed between the first scintillator crystal and the second scintillator crystal (fig.7 items 402 & 420, para. [0102]) motivated by the benefits for an improved detective quantum efficiency (Yorkston et al. para. [0040]).
In light of the benefits for an improved detective quantum efficiency as taught by Yorkston et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Furenlid et al. with the teachings of Yorkston et al.
Yorkston et al. are silent about: an encapsulation material disposed: on a sidewall defined by the first semiconductor die and the second semiconductor die; and between the first scintillator crystal and the second scintillator crystal.
In a similar field of endeavor Shaw et al. disclose: an encapsulation material disposed: on a sidewall defined by the first semiconductor die and the second semiconductor die; and between the first scintillator crystal and the second scintillator crystal (para. [0083]) motivated by the benefits for improved protecting while not interfering the operation of the device (Shaw et al. para. [0083]).
In light of the benefits for improved protecting while not interfering the operation of the device as taught by Shaw et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Furenlid et al. and Yorkston et al. with the teachings of Shaw et al.
Regarding claim 22, Furenlid et al. disclose: the first semiconductor die is directly coupled with second semiconductor die (fig.27 shows scintillation detectors 700(7) & 700(8), para. [0016]-[0018], it is known in the art to form a photomultiplier array on a semiconductor die).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furenlid et al. (US 2022/0211334 A1; pub. Jul. 7, 2022) in view of Yorkston et al. (US 2008/0011960 A1; pub. Jan. 17, 2008) in view of Shaw et al. (US 2012/0132817 A1; pub. May 31, 2012) and further in view of Flitsch et al. (US 2010/0108893 A1; pub. May 6, 2010).
Regarding claim 14, the combined references are silent about: the carrier is electrically coupled with the photomultiplier array by at least one via that extends through the semiconductor die from the first side of the semiconductor die to the second side of the semiconductor die.
In a similar field of endeavor Flitsch et al. disclose: the carrier is electrically coupled with the photomultiplier array by at least one via that extends through the semiconductor die from the first side of the semiconductor die to the second side of the semiconductor die (para. [0038], [0103], [0144]) motivated by the benefits for providing good Ohmic contact (Flitsch et al. para. [0038]).
In light of the benefits for providing good Ohmic contact as taught by Flitsch et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Furenlid et al., Yorkston et al. and Shaw et al. with the teachings of Flitsch et al.
Claims 16, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furenlid et al. (US 2022/0211334 A1; pub. Jul. 7, 2022) in view of Yorkston et al. (US 2008/0011960 A1; pub. Jan. 17, 2008) in view of Shaw et al. (US 2012/0132817 A1; pub. May 31, 2012) and further in view of Barbi et al. (US 2012/0025074 A1; pub. Feb. 2, 2012).
Regarding claim 16, the combined references are silent about: a flex connector coupled with the carrier, the flex connector being configured to connect the photomultiplier array with external circuitry.
In a similar field of endeavor Barbi et al. disclose: a flex connector coupled with the carrier, the flex connector being configured to connect the photomultiplier array with external circuitry (para. [0085]) motivated by the benefits for high-speed signal integrity.
In light of the benefits for high-speed signal integrity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Furenlid et al., Yorkston et al. and Shaw et al. with the teachings of Barbi et al.
Regarding claim 21, the combined references are silent about: a first flex connector coupled with the first semiconductor die, the first flex connector being configured to connect the first photomultiplier array with external circuitry; and a second flex connector coupled with the second semiconductor die, the second flex connector being configured to connect the second photomultiplier array with the external circuitry.
In a similar field of endeavor Barbi et al. disclose: a first flex connector coupled with the first semiconductor die, the first flex connector being configured to connect the first photomultiplier array with external circuitry; and a second flex connector coupled with the second semiconductor die, the second flex connector being configured to connect the second photomultiplier array with the external circuitry (para. [0085]) motivated by the benefits for high-speed signal integrity.
In light of the benefits for high-speed signal integrity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Furenlid et al., Yorkston et al. and Shaw et al. with the teachings of Barbi et al.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furenlid et al. (US 2022/0211334 A1; pub. Jul. 7, 2022) in view of Yorkston et al. (US 2008/0011960 A1; pub. Jan. 17, 2008) in view of Shaw et al. (US 2012/0132817 A1; pub. May 31, 2012) and further in view of Leder (US 2024/0103187 A1; pub. Mar. 28, 2024).
Regarding claim 23, the combined references are silent about: the first scintillator crystal is directly coupled with the first semiconductor die with an optically clear adhesive; and the second scintillator crystal is directly coupled with the second semiconductor die with the optically clear adhesive.
In a similar field of endeavor Leder discloses: the first scintillator crystal is directly coupled with the first semiconductor die with an optically clear adhesive; and the second scintillator crystal is directly coupled with the second semiconductor die with the optically clear adhesive (para. [0111]) motivated by the benefits for improved light transmission.
In light of the benefits for improved light transmission, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Furenlid et al., Yorkston et al. and Shaw et al. with the teachings of Leder.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braeuninger-Wiemer et al. (US 2025/0116787 A1; pub. Apr. 10, 2025) in view of Rose et al. (US 2017/0031038 A1; pub. Feb. 2, 2017).
Regarding claim 25, Braeuninger-Wiemer et al. are silent about: at least one glass component respectively disposed between at least one of: the first photomultiplier and the first sidewall; the second photomultiplier and the second sidewall; or the third photomultiplier and the third sidewall.
In a similar field of endeavor Rose et al. disclose: at least one glass component respectively disposed between at least one of: the first photomultiplier and the first sidewall; the second photomultiplier and the second sidewall; or the third photomultiplier and the third sidewall (para. [0018]-[0020]) motivated by the benefits for improved light detection by the photon detector (Rose et al. para. [0014]).
In light of the benefits for improved light detection by the photon detector as taught by Rose et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Braeuninger-Wiemer et al. with the teachings of Rose et al.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braeuninger-Wiemer et al. (US 2025/0116787 A1; pub. Apr. 10, 2025) in view of Barbi et al. (US 2012/0025074 A1; pub. Feb. 2, 2012).
Regarding claim 27, Braeuninger-Wiemer et al. are silent about: a flex connector coupled with the first photomultiplier, the flex connector being configured to connect the first photomultiplier with external circuitry.
In a similar field of endeavor Barbi et al. disclose: a first printed circuit board (PCB) is electrically coupled to the first photomultiplier; a second PCB is electrically coupled to the third photomultiplier; and the third photomultiplier is electrically coupled to the first PCB via a flex connector (para. [0085]) motivated by the benefits for high-speed signal integrity.
In light of the benefits for high-speed signal integrity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Braeuninger-Wiemer et al. with the teachings of Barbi et al.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braeuninger-Wiemer et al. (US 2025/0116787 A1; pub. Apr. 10, 2025) in view of Shaw et al. (US 2012/0132817 A1; pub. May 31, 2012).
Regarding claim 29, Braeuninger-Wiemer et al. are silent about: a molding material encapsulating at least a portion of the scintillator crystal and being in contact with, at least, respective portions of the first photomultiplier, the second photomultiplier, and the third photomultiplier, such that at least a fourth sidewall of the scintillator crystal is exposed through the molding material.
In a similar field of endeavor Shaw et al. disclose: a molding material encapsulating at least a portion of the scintillator crystal and being in contact with, at least, respective portions of the first photomultiplier, the second photomultiplier, and the third photomultiplier, such that at least a fourth sidewall of the scintillator crystal is exposed through the molding material (para. [0083]) motivated by the benefits for improved protecting while not interfering the operation of the device (Shaw et al. para. [0083]).
In light of the benefits for improved protecting while not interfering the operation of the device as taught by Shaw et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Braeuninger-Wiemer et al. with the teachings of Shaw et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884