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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the conductive coating" in line10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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, 3, 8-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawver (US 20100246771) in view of Konkle (US 8,680,475).
Regarding claim 1, Hawver teaches an x-ray detector ([0048] for example), comprising:
a housing (92) comprising a conductive coating ([0083]);
Hawver is generally directed to aluminum enclosure (92). Hawver further teaches the plastic is known material for composing a housing ([0014]). Konkle teaches (col. 5 lines 55-65) a similar system wherein a plastic housing has the known advantage of reduced weight. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time of the invention to modify Hawver to try the known use of a plastic housing for the benefit of reducing the weight.
Hawver further teaches a two-dimensional sensor array disposed within the plastic housing and configured to generate image data in response to incident x-rays (Fig. 1; [0002]; [0007]).
Hawver does not teach the two-dimensional sensor array to be a flexible two-dimensional sensor array; however, the Examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known in the art to use a flexible two-dimensional sensor array as two-dimensional sensor array in an imaging system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to have the two-dimensional sensor array, as taught by Hawver, be replaced by a flexible two-dimensional sensor array, as is known in the art, to achieve the predictable results of providing a sensor array that can capture image information.
Hawver, as modified above, further teaches a front plate connected to the plastic housing, the front plate and the plastic housing forming an enclosure surrounding the flexible two-dimensional sensor array (80; Fig. 7);
an electromagnetic interference shield around the flexible two-dimensional sensor array, wherein the electromagnetic interference shield comprises the conductive coating and the front plate ([0032]; [0048]); and
a printed circuit board mounted to the plastic housing (98; [0079]). It necessarily follows that the circuit board would be mounted either directly or indirectly to the housing (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 3, Hawver further teaches the conductive coating and the front plate are electrically connected together ([0090]).
Regarding claim 8, Hawver does not explicitly teach a first dimension of the printed circuit board along an axis including a center of the plastic housing is less than a second dimension of the printed circuit board along a major axis of the printed circuit board. However, absent some degree of criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to have a first dimension of the printed circuit board along an axis including a center of the plastic housing is less than a second dimension of the printed circuit board along a major axis of the printed circuit board, since the modification would be a mere change in shape. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 9, Hawver teaches an enclosure for an x-ray detector ([0048] for example), the enclosure comprising:
a housing (92);
a conductive coating covering an internal surface of the housing ([0083]);
a front plate electrically coupleable to the conductive coating and sealabe to the housing to define the enclosure (80; Fig. 7); and
a rigid component attached to the housing within the enclosure for example: 112; [0084]-[0085]; [0095]).
Hawver is generally directed to aluminum enclosure (92). Hawver further teaches the plastic is known material for composing a housing ([0014]). Konkle teaches (col. 5 lines 55-65) a similar system wherein a plastic housing has the known advantage of reduced weight. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time of the invention to modify Hawver to try the known use of a plastic housing for the benefit of reducing the weight.
Regarding claim 10, Hawver teaches a conductive material (116) covering the rigid component and electrically connected to the conductive coating ([0084]-[0085]; Figs. 9C and 11).
Regarding claim 11, Hawver, as modified above, teaches the rigid component comprises a plate covering an area of a base of the plastic housing greater than 50% of an area of the base (for example Fig. 8F).
Regarding claim 12, Hawver teaches a foam or resilient material adjacent to the rigid component, wherein a surface of the foam or the resilient material is level with a surface of the rigid component. ([0077]; Figs. 7 and 10A)
Regarding claim 13, Hawver teaches the rigid component comprises metal ([0084]).
Regarding claim 16, Hawver teaches a conductive gasket configured to electrically couple the front plate to the conductive coating and seal the front plate to the plastic housing (see conductive film and foam [0077] form a gasket).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawver (US 20100246771) in view of Konkle (US 8,680,475) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noguchi et al. (US 2023/0314631).
Regarding claim 2, Hawver, as modified above, further teaches he flexible two-dimensional sensor array comprises a substrate (90), but does not teach the substrate to be polyamide, polyester, or polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Noguchi teaches having a substrate for an X-ray panel to include polyamide or polyethylene terephthalate (PET). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to have the substrate include polyamide or polyethylene terephthalate (PET) since it has been held to be 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawver (US 20100246771) in view of Konkle (US 8,680,475) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Samson (US 9,700,112).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Hawver does not teach a corner bumper removably attached to the plastic housing. Corner bumpers are a known means to protect electronics from damage. Samson teaches a corner bumper (12A), comprising: a tip formed from a first material (exterior coating); and a body formed from a second material different (resin see col. 3 lines 40 -50) from the first material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to include a corner bumper for the benefit of protecting the apparatus from damage.
Samson further teaches the corner bumper is removably (col. 2 line 2 ) attached.
Regarding claim 7, Samson further teaches the corner bumper comprises a first material and a second material; the first material comprises rubber (col. 3 line 46); and the second material comprises plastic different from the first material (ballistic plastic).
Claim(s) 4 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawver (US 20100246771) in view of Konkle (US 8,680,475) and Omura et al. (US 2020/0183020).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Hawver teaches a method of manufacturing an x-ray detector (Abstract), the method comprising:
forming a housing (92);
applying a conductive coating to the housing ([0083]);
attaching a two-dimensional sensor array to the housing (Figs. 7 and 10A); and
sealing a front plate to the housing Figs. 7 and 10A).
Hawver is generally directed to aluminum enclosure (92). Hawver further teaches the plastic is known material for composing a housing ([0014]). Konkle teaches (col. 5 lines 55-65) a similar system wherein a plastic housing has the known advantage of reduced weight. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time of the invention to modify Hawver to try the known use of a plastic housing for the benefit of reducing the weight.
Hawver does not teach attaching a two-dimensional sensor array to the plastic housing such that the two- dimensional sensor array is electrically connected to the conductive coating. However, Omura teaches attaching a two-dimensional sensor array to the conductive part of a housing such that the two- dimensional sensor array is electrically connected to the conductive part of the housing for the benefit of improving noise resistance ([0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to include attaching a two-dimensional sensor array to the plastic housing such that the two- dimensional sensor array is electrically connected to the conductive coating for the benefit of improving noise resistance.
Regarding claim 18, Hawver does not teach the plastic housing is formed by injection molding. However, the Examiner is taking Official Notice that injection molding is very well known to form enclosures and housings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill at the time of the invention to try forming the plastic housing by injection molding for the predictable results of forming the plastic housing.
Regarding claim 19, Hawver teaches forming the front plate from a non-conductive material; and embedding a conductive material in the front plate (80, 82, and 84).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 3-4, 8-9, 16-19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-2, 5, 10-14, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,372,674. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,372,674 merely includes additional elements.
Regarding claim 18, the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,372,674 do not include the plastic housing is formed by injection molding. However, the Examiner is taking Official Notice that injection molding is very well known to form enclosures and housings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to try forming the plastic housing by injection molding for the predictable results of forming the plastic housing.
Claim 2 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 10, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,372,674 in view of Noguchi et al. (US 2023/0314631). The claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,372,674 are silent regarding a substrate of the flexible two-dimensional sensor array; however, Noguchi teaches having a substrate for an X-ray panel to include polyamide or polyethylene terephthalate (PET). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to have the substrate include polyamide or polyethylene terephthalate (PET) since it has been held to be 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 6-7 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 10-11, 13, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,372,674 in view of Samson (US 9,700,112). The claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,372,674 do not include a corner bumper removably attached to the plastic housing. Corner bumpers are a known means to protect electronics from damage. Samson teaches a corner bumper (12A), comprising: a tip formed from a first material (exterior coating); and a body formed from a second material different (resin see col. 3 lines 40 -50) from the first material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to include a corner bumper for the benefit of protecting the apparatus from damage.
Samson further teaches the corner bumper is removably (col. 2 line 2 ) attached.
Samson further teaches the corner bumper comprises a first material and a second material; the first material comprises rubber (col. 3 line 46); and the second material comprises plastic different from the first material (ballistic plastic).
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 14-15, 17, and 20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, and 15-16 of copending Application No. 18/660,137 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of copending Application No. 18/660,137 do not include the two-dimensional sensor array to be a flexible two-dimensional sensor array; however, the Examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known in the art to use a flexible two-dimensional sensor array as two-dimensional sensor array in an imaging system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to have the two-dimensional sensor array, as taught by Hawver, be replaced by a flexible two-dimensional sensor array, as is known in the art, to achieve the predictable results of providing a sensor array that can capture image information.
Claims of copending Application No. 18/660,137 do not include a printed circuit board mounted to the plastic housing. However, the Examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known in the art to include a printed circuit board mounted to the housing with a radiation detector. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to a printed circuit board mounted to the plastic housing to achieve the predictable results of providing readout and control for detector.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 2 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/660,137 in view of Noguchi et al. (US 2023/0314631). Claims of copending Application No. 18/660,137 are silent regarding a substrate of the flexible two-dimensional sensor array; however, Noguchi teaches having a substrate for an X-ray panel to include polyamide or polyethylene terephthalate (PET). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to have the substrate include polyamide or polyethylene terephthalate (PET) since it has been held to be 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jadrich et al. (US 2007/0272873) teaches the use of an antenna (for example
428) electrically connected to the two-dimensional sensor array; wherein the antenna is
disposed within the enclosure (Fig. 2 or 5 for example) such that a wall of the housing is
disposed between the antenna and a region external to the enclosure.
Einzinger et al. (US 11,839,133) teaches a detector housing that includes an
antenna structurally coupled and electrically isolated by one-or more non-conductive
segments of the sidewalls (col. 4, lines 16-26).
Roziere (US 2006/0097734) teaches an x-ray detector that includes a shield strap to modify field lines of electrodes ([0067]).
Dolci et al. (US 2014/0268578) teaches an electromagnetic interference shielding enclosure and plastic housing for electronic components including printed circuit board and sensors (Abstract; [0008]; [0024]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carolyn Fin whose telephone number is (571)270-1286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
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.
/CAROLYN FIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights