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
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lubinsky et al (US 11,802,979,B2).
Regarding claim 1, Lubinsky et al discloses an electronic device (1) (col. 4, 10-11) comprising: a sensor (photodiode array) (105) (col. 4, line 16); a scintillator layer (124) (col. 4, line 22), disposed on the sensor (105); and a wavelength conversion layer (10) (col. 4, lines 64-col. 5, line 20) disposed between the scintillator layer and the sensor (See Figs. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
570
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lubinsky et al discloses wherein a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the scintillator layer is in a range of 350 nm to 520 nm (col. 5, lines 9-20).
Regarding claim 3, Lubinsky et al discloses wherein a material of the scintillator layer comprises a perovskite material (col. 5, lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 4, Lubinsky et al discloses wherein a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the wavelength conversion layer is in a range of 520 nm to 580 nm (i.e. 550 nm) (col. 5, lines 9-20).
Regarding claim 5, Lubinsky et al discloses wherein a peak wavelength of an absorption response spectrum of the sensor is in a range of 500 nm to 700 nm (See Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 38-63).
Regarding claim 8, Lubinsky et al discloses wherein a thickness of the scintillator layer is 1.25 to 500 times a thickness of the wavelength conversion layer (col. 9, lines 31-67).
Regarding claim 9, Lubinsky et al discloses wherein a thickness of the scintillator layer is in a range of 50 to 1000 mm (i.e. 100 mm) (col. 9, lines 50-52).
Regarding claim 11, Lubinsky et al discloses wherein further comprising: a reflective layer (20) (112A) (See Figs. 1, 3), disposed on the scintillator layer; and an encapsulation layer (protective layer), disposed on the reflective layer (col. 5, lines 60-64).
Regarding claim 12, Lubinsky et al discloses wherein the reflective layer allows an x-ray to penetrate through and reflects visible light (col. 9, lines 21-26).
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubinsky et al (US 11,802,979,B2) in view of Shimizu et al (US 7026756 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Lubinsky et al discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1, as described supra however, Lubinsky et al is silent with regards to peak wavelengths as claimed. Shimizu et al discloses a light emitting device with blue light LED and phosphor components, comprising: a scintillator layer (crystal of phosphor) is configured to convert non-visible light incident on the electronic device into a first visible light with a first peak wavelength (col. 12, lines 59-col. 13, line 4), the wavelength conversion layer is configured to convert the first visible light into a second visible light with a second peak wavelength, and a difference between a peak wavelength of an absorption response spectrum of the sensor and the first peak wavelength is greater than a difference between the peak wavelength of the absorption response spectrum of the sensor and the second peak wavelength (absorb first peak wavelength and emit second visible light of different peak wavelength to tune spectral matching) (See Abstract and col. 12, lines 59-col. 13, line 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Lubinsky et al with the teaching of Shimizu et al so as to improve photon detection efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, Lubinsky et al in view of Shimizu et al discloses wherein the second peak wavelength is between the first peak wavelength and the peak wavelength of the absorption response spectrum of the sensor (Abstract and col. 12, lines 59-col. 13, line 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Lubinsky et al with the teaching of Shimizu et al so as to improve photon detection efficiency.
Claim(s) 10, 13-15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubinsky et al (US 11,802,979,B2) in view of Pal et al (US 20240313178 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lubinsky et al discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1, as described supra however, Lubinsky et al is silent with regards to the thickness of the wavelength conversion layer as claimed. Pal et al discloses a phosphor-converted light-emitting diode with dielectric spacer, comprising: a wavelength conversion layer (106) (paragraph [0031]) wherein a thickness of the wavelength conversion layer is in a range of 2 mm to 40 mm (paragraphs [0047], [0049]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Lubinsky et al with the teaching of Pal et al so as to minimize optical crosstalk and reduce total internal reflection.
Regarding claim 13, Lubinsky et al discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1, as described supra however, Lubinsky et al is silent with regards to spacer layer. Pal et al discloses a phosphor-converted light-emitting diode with dielectric spacer, comprising: a spacer layer (700), disposed on the sensor, and comprising a plurality of openings (holes, depressions, inclusion or structure), wherein the plurality of openings respectively overlap a plurality of photosensitive elements of the sensor, and the wavelength conversion layer is located at least in the plurality of openings (paragraph [0068]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Lubinsky et al with the teaching of Pal et al so as to shape emission and transport paths.
Regarding claim 14, Lubinsky et al in view of Pal et al discloses wherein the material of the spacer layer comprises a light-absorbing material or a light-reflecting material (paragraphs [0045], [0082]).
Regarding claim 15, Lubinsky et al in view of Pal et al discloses wherein a thickness of the spacer layer is greater than a thickness of the wavelength conversion layer (paragraphs [0049]-[0050], [0052]).
Regarding claim 17, Lubinsky et al in view of Pal et al discloses wherein a thickness of the wavelength conversion layer is greater than a thickness of the spacer layer (paragraphs [0049], [0052], [0056]), and a portion of the scintillator layer (photonic crystal) (paragraph [0065]) that contacts the wavelength conversion layer is not disposed in the plurality of openings.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubinsky et al (US 11,802,979,B2) in view of Pal et al (US 20240313178 A1), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Okada et al (US 7244945 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Lubinsky et al and Pal et al disclose all of the limitations of claim 15, as described supra however, Lubinsky et al and Pal et al are silent with regards to an adhesive layer as claimed. Okada et al discloses an adhesive layer (adhesive agent), wherein the scintillator layer is attached to the wavelength conversion layer through the adhesive layer, and at least a portion of the adhesive layer is located in the plurality of openings (col. 9, lines 59-67). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Lubinsky et al and Pal et al with the teaching Okada et al, so as to enable maximum optical coupling.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubinsky et al (US 11,802,979,B2) in view of Okada et al (US 7244945 B2).
Regarding claim 18, Lubinsky et al discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1, as described supra however, Lubinsky et al is silent with regards to an adhesive layer. Okada et al discloses a scintillator panel (110), radiation detector (100) comprising; an adhesive layer (adhesive agent), wherein the scintillator layer is attached to the wavelength conversion layer through the adhesive layer (col. 9, lines 30-38). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Lubinsky et al with the teaching Okada et al so as to enable maximum optical coupling.
Regarding claim 19, Lubinsky et al in view of Okada et al discloses an adhesive layer, wherein the wavelength conversion layer (113) (col. 5, lines 5-8) is attached to the sensor through the adhesive layer (col. 10, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 20, Lubinsky et al in view of Okada et al discloses further comprising: a first adhesive layer (115) (col. 17, lines 1-7), wherein the wavelength conversion layer is attached to the sensor through the first adhesive layer, and a second adhesive layer (160) , wherein the scintillator layer is attached to the wavelength conversion layer through the second adhesive layer (col. 11, lines 24-35).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miyao et al (US 2021/0173100 A1) discloses a scintillator panel and an X-ray detector which have high sensitivity and sharpness. The scintillator panel includes a substrate and a scintillator layer containing a binder resin and a phosphor, wherein the scintillator panel further contains an organic compound having the maximum peak wavelength of light emission in the wavelength region of from 450 to 600 nm.
PNG
media_image2.png
310
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANI POLYZOS BOOSALIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2447. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 PM.
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 Uzma.Alam@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/F.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights