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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
It is determined that “an X-ray irradiation means” in combination of “irradiates” and “means” for creating” recited in claim 13 invokes the 112, six paragraph. It is determined that the Specification discloses the corresponding devices for these limitations.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyaizu, and further in view of JP 20202- 517960 (hereunder D2; see provided a translation).
With respect to independent claim 1, Oyaizu teaches in Fig. 5 a fluorescent screen configured to convert X- rays to visible light, comprising:
a first layer 16;
a second layer 18; and
a third layer 17 provided between the first layer and the second layer and containing a phosphor, wherein the phosphor is formed of europium-activated barium fluorochloride as disclosed in paragraph [0035],
a weight of the phosphor in the third layer is greater than or equal to 300 mg/cm2 and less than or equal to 600 mg/cm2 as disclosed in paragraph [0059], and
a total light transmittance of each of the first layer and the second layer polyethylene terephthalate in paragraph [0065], which is the same material as in the Specification of the present application, and therefore, Oyaizu inherently teaches this limitation for an emission wavelength 380 nm of the phosphor is greater than or equal to 70%.
In addition, D2 teaches in paragraph [0033 – 0034] polyethylene terephthalate having light transmittance of at least 90%. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Oyaizu in order to improve detection efficiencies. 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 7, as discussed above Oyaizu modified by D2 teaches an X-ray detector comprising:
a detector body comprising an incident portion of X-rays;
a fluorescence generation means 11 in Oyaizu comprising a fluorescent screen which is provided in the incident portion, is configured to convert X-rays to visible light and comprises:
a first layer;
a second layer; and
a third layer provided between the first layer and the second layer and containing a phosphor,
wherein the phosphor is formed of europium-activated barium fluorochloride, and a weight of the phosphor in the third layer is greater than or equal to 300 mg/cm2 and less than or equal to 600 mg/cm2, and a total light transmittance of each of the first layer and the second layer for an emission wavelength 380 nm of the phosphor is greater than or equal to 70% as discussed above in the rejection justification to claim 1; and
a photoelectric conversion means 15 in Oyaizu provided in the detector body.
With respect to independent claim 13, as discussed in the rejection justification to claim 1, Oyaizu modified by D1 teaches an X-ray inspection device as shown in Fig. 1 in Oyaizu comprising:
an X-ray irradiation means 2 which irradiates a target object with X-rays;
a detector body 6,7 comprising an incident portion of X-rays;
a fluorescence generation means comprising a fluorescent screen which is provided in the incident portion, is configured to convert X-rays to visible light, and comprises:
a first layer; a second layer; and a third layer provided between the first layer and the second layer and containing a phosphor, wherein the phosphor is formed of europium-activated barium fluorochloride, and a weight of the phosphor in the third layer is greater than or equal to 300 mg/cm2 and less than or equal to 600 mg/cm2, and a total light transmittance of each of the first layer and the second layer for an emission wavelength 380 nm of the phosphor is greater than or equal to 70%;an X-ray detection means which comprises an X-ray detector comprising a photoelectric conversion means provided in the detector body as discussed above in the rejection justification to claim 1, and detects transmissive X-rays or Compton scattering X-rays from the target object; and a means 8 for creating an image of inside of the target object based on an X-ray strength measured by the X-ray detection means.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 8, and 14, Oyaizu is silent with wherein a thickness of each of the first layer and the second layer is greater than or equal to 188 µm and less than or equal to 350 µm.
D2, a pertinent art, teaches in paragraph [0010] thickness of support layer having between 1 and 300 microns. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Oyaizu in order to improve light detection efficiencies. 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 claims 3, 9, and 15, Oyaizu teaches in paragraph [0039] wherein an average particle diameter of the phosphor is greater than or equal to 3 µm and less than or equal to 6 µm.
With respect to dependent claims 4, 10, and 16, Oyaizu teaches in paragraph [0036] wherein an europium concentration of the phosphor is greater than or equal to 0.3% by weight and less than or equal to 1.5% by weight.
With respect to dependent claims 5, 11, and 17, Oyaizu teaches in paragraph [0064] wherein each of the first layer and the second layer contains polyethylene terephthalate.
With respect to dependent claims 6, 12, and 18, Oyaizu teaches in Fig. 5 wherein the first layer 16 is a support body, and the second layer 18 is a protective layer, and the third layer 17 is a phosphor layer.
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
Prosecution Insights