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 § 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) 1-6 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyao et al. (US 2023/0408711; hereinafter Miyao) in view of Grodzins et al. (US 2018/0328861; hereinafter Grodzins).
Regarding claim 1, Miyao discloses an X-ray detector (1) comprising at least one photosensor (3) coupled (par. 69); and a scintillator screen (2) coupled and in light communication with the at least one photosensor (fig. 1; pars. 19 and 68), wherein the scintillator screen comprises a scintillator layer (6) having a plurality of phosphor particles (14; par. 19) and wherein a mean particle size of the plurality of phosphor particles is in a range of 30 μm to 70 μm (par. 60).
However, Miyao fails to disclose coupling to a housing.
Grodzins teaches coupling to a housing (par. 106).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Miyao with the teaching of Grodzins, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for protection while detecting (Grodzins: pars. 7 and 69).
Regarding claim 2, Grodzins teaches wherein the X-ray detector is a backscatter (314) detector (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Miyao discloses wherein a thickness of the scintillator layer is in a range of 100 μm to 4000 μm (par. 119; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Miyao discloses wherein the plurality of phosphor particles is made of europium-doped barium fluorohalide (BaF(halide):Eu) (par. 56).
However, Miyao fails to disclose chloride, a halide type.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Miyao with chloride, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (Miyao: par. 56; halide). One would have been motivated to make such a modification for stability and abundance of material.
Regarding claim 5, Miyao discloses wherein the plurality of phosphor particles is made of Gadolinium Oxysulfide (Gd2O2S) (par. 58).
Regarding claim 6, Miyao discloses wherein a packing fraction of a weight of the plurality of phosphor particles to a weight of a binder together with the plurality of phosphor particles is in a range of 50% to 90% (par. 134).
Regarding claim 10, Miyao discloses wherein a smallest of the plurality of phosphor particles has a particle size that is within 20% of a particle size of a largest of the plurality of phosphor particles (fig. 1:1).
It also would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Miyao to be within 20%, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (Miyao: par. 60). One would have been motivated to make such a modification for improving brightness (Miyao: par. 60).
Regarding claim 11, Miyao discloses wherein a transparency of the scintillator screen (fig. 1) is necessarily in a range of 10% greater than a transparency of a second scintillator screen (that has less transparency), wherein the second scintillator screen (would) comprise phosphor particles having particle sizes below 30 um.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyao and Grodzins as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Huh et al. (US 2014/0110602; hereinafter Huh).
Regarding claim 7, Miyao as modified above suggests claim 2.
However, Miyao fails to disclose wherein the scintillator screen further comprises an anti-scratch layer coupled to the scintillator layer.
Huh teaches wherein the scintillator screen further comprises an anti-scratch layer (400) coupled to the scintillator layer (300).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Miyao with the teaching of Huh, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for protection (Huh: pars. 38-39).
Regarding claim 8, Arimoto teaches wherein the scintillator screen further comprises a reflector layer (200) coupled to the scintillator layer (300) such that the scintillator layer (300) is sandwiched between the reflector layer (200) and the anti-scratch layer (400).
Claim(s) 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyao, Grodzins, and Huh as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 10-1168874 B1; hereinafter Kim).
Miyao as modified above suggests claim 8.
However, Miyao fails to disclose wherein the scintillator screen further comprises a release liner coupled to the reflector layer.
Kim teaches wherein the scintillator screen further comprises a release liner (110d) coupled to the reflector layer (110c).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the prior art with the teaching of Kim, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for reducing processing costs (Kim: abstract).
Claim(s) 12-14, 16, 18, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyao and Grodzins as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arodzero et al. (US 2013/0208857; hereinafter Arodzero).
Regarding claim 12, Miyao as modified above suggests claim 1.
However, Miyao fails to disclose wherein the X-ray detector is a transmission detector.
Arodzero teaches wherein the X-ray detector is a transmission detector (par. 12).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify Miyao with the teaching of Arodzero, since configurations were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to substitute (Arodzero: par. 12). One would have been motivated to make such a modification for more information (Arodzero: par. 86).
Regarding claim 13, Miyao discloses wherein a thickness of the scintillator layer is in a range of 100 μm to 4000 μm (par. 119; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Miyao discloses wherein the plurality of phosphor particles is made of europium-doped barium fluorohalide (BaF(halide):Eu) (par. 56).
However, Miyao fails to disclose chloride, a halide type.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Miyao with chloride, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (Miyao: par. 56; halide). One would have been motivated to make such a modification for stability and abundance of material.
Regarding claim 16, Miyao discloses wherein the plurality of phosphor particles is made of Gadolinium Oxysulfide (Gd2O2S) (par. 58).
Regarding claim 18, Miyao discloses wherein a packing fraction of a weight of the plurality of phosphor particles to a weight of a binder together with the plurality of phosphor particles is in a range of 50% to 90% (par. 134).
Regarding claim 22, Miyao discloses wherein a smallest of the plurality of phosphor particles has a particle size that is within 20% of a particle size of a largest of the plurality of phosphor particles (fig. 1:1).
It also would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Miyao to be within 20%, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (Miyao: par. 60). One would have been motivated to make such a modification for improving brightness (Miyao: par. 60).
Regarding claim 23, Miyao discloses wherein a transparency of the scintillator screen (fig. 1) is necessarily in a range of 10% greater than a transparency of a second scintillator screen (that has less transparency), wherein the second scintillator screen (would) comprise phosphor particles having particle sizes below 30 um.
Claim(s) 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyao, Grodzins, and Arodzero as applied to claims 14 and 16 above, and further in view of Tumer et al. (US 2004/0017224; hereinafter Tumer).
Regarding claim 15, Miyao as modified above suggests claim 14.
However, Miyao fails to disclose wherein a pixel pitch is larger than 350 μm.
Tumer teaches wherein a pixel pitch is larger than 350 μm (par. 173).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify Miyao with the teaching of Tumer, since where the general conditions of a claim are in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (Tumer: par. 173). One would have been motivated to make such a modification for having the desired image resolution (Tumer: par. 173).
Regarding claim 17, Tumer teaches wherein a pixel pitch is larger than 200 μm (par. 173).
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyao, Grodzins, and Arodzero as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Huh.
Regarding claim 19, Miyao as modified above suggests claim 12.
However, Miyao fails to disclose wherein the scintillator screen further comprises an anti-scratch layer coupled to the scintillator layer.
Huh teaches wherein the scintillator screen further comprises an anti-scratch layer (400) coupled to the scintillator layer (300).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Miyao with the teaching of Huh, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for protection (Huh: pars. 38-39).
Regarding claim 20, Arimoto teaches wherein the scintillator screen further comprises a reflector layer (200) coupled to the scintillator layer (300) such that the scintillator layer (300) is sandwiched between the reflector layer (200) and the anti-scratch layer (400).
Claim(s) 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyao, Grodzins, Arodzero, and Huh as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Kim.
Miyao as modified above suggests claim 20.
However, Miyao fails to disclose wherein the scintillator screen further comprises a release liner coupled to the reflector layer.
Kim teaches wherein the scintillator screen further comprises a release liner (110d) coupled to the reflector layer (110c).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the prior art with the teaching of Kim, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for reducing processing costs (Kim: abstract).
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
Prosecution Insights