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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/07/2025 was considered by the examiner.
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 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Koyanagi (JP 2016-070890 A) in view of Sheridan et al. (US 2003/0211317 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Koyanagi teaches a radiographic imaging apparatus comprising a housing having an irradiation part to be irradiated with radiation (housing 2; front plate 21); an internal module including a radiation detector that detects the radiation (detector panel 31), and a holding base that is made of metal and holds the radiation detector (aluminum holding base 4). The radiation detector includes a scintillator, a light detector having a light receiving surface on which light receiving elements and lines for reading out electric signals are formed (two-dimensional photoelectric-conversion/switching pixels and readout circuit on a glass insulating substrate) [0013], and a support that supports the light detector (glass insulating substrate) ([0010]–[0018], [0025]–[0026], Figs. 1 and 3).
Koyanagi further teaches a peelable weak-adhesive double-sided tape disposed between the internal module and the irradiation part (first adhesive layer 51), provided on the entire surface of the internal module closer to the irradiation part, and fixing that surface to the inner surface of the irradiation part to be peelable ([0010]–[0018], [0025]–[0026], Figs. 1 and 3).
Koyanagi, however, does not expressly disclose that the double-sided tape has a peeling aid distinct from the adhesive member or that the peeling aid has a bending rigidity lower than the bending rigidity of the internal module.
Sheridan teaches a stretch-release tape having a thin polymeric-film backing, including PET, with a pressure-sensitive adhesive disposed on one or both major surfaces, and an exposed backing extension that is pulled to release the bonded substrates. Sheridan’s examples use a 38.1μm PET backing ([0084]–[0092], [0100]–[0108], [0162]–[0163], Examples 12–21).
Notice how the film backing corresponds to the peeling aid, and the pressure-sensitive adhesive coating corresponds to the adhesive member. A thin flexible PET backing has lower bending rigidity than Koyanagi’s complete internal module containing the glass detector panel and aluminum holding base. Because Koyanagi already uses peelable double-sided tape to removably secure the detector module to the housing; Koyanagi [0015] – [0018], Sheridan is reasonably pertinent for its teachings of known film-backed construction for such removable tape; Sheridan [0084], [0092], [0094].
In view of the utility of Sheridan’s thin resin-film tape backing for providing a flexible, graspable carrier and controlled removal while retaining adhesive fixation, it would have been obvious to implement Koyanagi’s expressly disclosed peelable double-sided tape 51 with Sheridan’s film-backed construction.
The modification would have predictably allowed the film backing to distribute and transmit peel force while the pressure-sensitive adhesive fixes the detector module to the front plate, thereby facilitating Koyanagi’s stated replacement and repair function.
With regard to claim 4, Koyanagi in view of Sheridan teaches the inherited limitations for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, and Sheridan further teaches that the peeling aid is a film made of resin (polymeric film backing; polyethylene terephthalate film). Accordingly, the Koyanagi-Sheridan combination teaches the additional limitation of claim 4.
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Koyanagi (JP 2016-070890 A) in view of Mag et al. (US 2015/0064386 A1).
With regard to claim 2, Koyanagi teaches a radiographic imaging apparatus comprising a housing having an irradiation part to be irradiated with radiation (housing 2; front plate 21); an internal module including a radiation detector fixed to the inner surface of the irradiation part by an adhesive member to be peelable and detecting the radiation (detector panel 31 and peelable first adhesive layer 51); and a holding base that is made of metal and holds the radiation detector (aluminum holding base 4). The radiation detector includes a scintillator, a light detector having photoelectric-conversion elements and readout lines on its light-receiving surface, and a support supporting the light detector (glass insulating substrate). Koyanagi’s fourth embodiment provides the peelable first adhesive layer as spaced strip members 511 on only part of the internal module’s irradiation-side surface ([0010]–[0018], [0025]–[0026], [0031]–[0035], Figs. 3–4).
Koyanagi, however, does not expressly disclose in one embodiment both the aluminum holding-base option and the partial strip arrangement, a peeling aid distinct from the adhesive member, or that the thickness of the peeling aid is less than the thickness of the adhesive member.
Mag teaches a cooperating stretch-release construction having a siliconized PET pull-tab liner of 0.025 ± 0.005 mm (20–30 μm) and a TESA 70415 adhesive of 0.15 ± 0.01 mm (140–160 μm), with the liner remaining adhered to the installed adhesive and extending from between the component and housing to provide a graspable pulling surface (Mag [0023], [0025]–[0032], Figs. 1A–3B; claim 18 corroborates the adhesive range and claim 20 corroborates PET material). Thus, even the maximum peeling-aid thickness is less than the minimum adhesive-member thickness (30 μm < 140 μm).
In view of the utility of Mag’s thin PET pull liner for providing a graspable, nonstick pulling surface and reliable stretch-release removal, it would have been obvious to implement Koyanagi’s peelable double-sided tape strips with Mag’s known PET-liner/TESA construction.
It also would have been obvious to retain Koyanagi’s aluminum holding-base option because the strip embodiment uses the same detector-panel/holding-base architecture and the strip geometry is compatible with the known metal material. The resulting arrangement would retain Koyanagi’s module rigidity, partial-surface fixation, and controlled repair removal while necessarily satisfying the claimed thickness relationship.
With regard to claim 5, Koyanagi in view of Mag teaches the inherited limitations for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 2, and Mag further teaches that the peeling aid is a film made of resin (siliconized polyester/PET pull-tab liner). Accordingly, the Koyanagi-Mag combination teaches the additional limitation of claim 5.
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Koyanagi (JP 2016-070890 A) in view of Jadrich et al. (US 2010/0158197 A1) and Mag et al. (US 2015/0064386 A1).
With regard to claim 3, Koyanagi teaches a radiographic imaging apparatus comprising a housing having an irradiation part to be irradiated with radiation (housing 2; front plate 21); an internal module including a radiation detector fixed to the inner surface of the irradiation part by an adhesive member to be peelable and detecting the radiation (detector panel 31 and peelable first adhesive layer 51); and a holding base that is made of metal and holds the radiation detector (aluminum holding base 4). The radiation detector includes a scintillator, a light detector having photoelectric-conversion elements and readout lines, and a support that is made of glass and supports the light detector (glass insulating substrate). Koyanagi’s spaced strip members 511 provide peelable fixation on only part of the internal module’s irradiation-side surface ([0010]–[0018], [0025]–[0026], [0031]–[0035], Figs. 3–4).
Koyanagi, however, does not expressly disclose in one embodiment both the aluminum holding-base option and the partial strip arrangement, a peeling aid distinct from the adhesive member, a thickness for the glass support, or that the thickness of the peeling aid is less than half of the thickness of the glass support.
Jadrich teaches a corresponding digital radiographic detector array fabricated on display glass and states that display glass is typically 0.7 mm thick ([0047]– [0050], Figs. 2–3).
Mag teaches a siliconized PET pull-tab liner of 20–30 μm that remains with the operative stretch-release adhesive assembly (Mag [0023], [0025]–[0032]). With the typical 700 μm glass support, half the support thickness is 350 μm, and Mag’s entire PET-liner range satisfies the claimed relationship (maximum ratio 30/700 = 0.0429 < 0.5).
In view of the utility of Jadrich’s conventional supported glass-detector construction for durability and Mag’s thin PET pull liner for controlled stretch-release removal, it would have been obvious to use those known dimensions in Koyanagi’s corresponding glass detector support and peelable tape construction.
It also would have been obvious to retain Koyanagi’s aluminum holding-base option in the strip embodiment because both embodiments use the same detector-panel/holding-base architecture, the metal base maintains module rigidity and thermal conduction, and nothing in the strip geometry is incompatible with that known material choice. The combination would have predictably preserved Koyanagi’s detector and repair functions while producing a peeling aid thinner than half the glass support.
With regard to claim 6, Koyanagi in view of Jadrich and Mag teaches the inherited limitations for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 3, and Mag further teaches that the peeling aid is a film made of resin (siliconized polyester/PET pull-tab liner). Accordingly, the Koyanagi-Jadrich-Mag combination teaches the additional limitation of claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Djura Malevic whose telephone number is 571.272-5975. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9-5).
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.
/DJURA MALEVIC/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights