SHANGHAI UNITED IMAGING HEALTHCARE CO., LTD.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 23, 20212020004635 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/809,708 11/10/2017 Shaohui AN 20618-0007US02 3784 140662 7590 06/23/2021 Metis IP LLC PO Box 423 McLean, VA 22101 EXAMINER BRYANT, MICHAEL C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2884 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/23/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing@metis-ip.com xbzhang@metis-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SHAOHUI AN and QIANG ZHANG ____________ Appeal 2020-004635 Application 15/809,708 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8–11, 18, 21–28, and 30–32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Shanghai United Imaging Healthcare Co., LTD. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-004635 Application 15/809,708 2 The invention generally relates to positron emission tomography (PET) detector devices. Spec. ¶¶ 2–3. Claim 1 illustrates the invention and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief: 1. A positron emission tomography (PET) detector, the PET detector comprising: a crystal array, the crystal array comprising a plurality of crystal elements arranged in a single layer, each of the plurality of crystal elements extending along a top-to-bottom direction, and having an upper side and a lower side; a semiconductor sensor array comprising a plurality of semiconductor sensors for receiving photons from the plurality of crystal elements; wherein more than one of the plurality of crystal elements in the crystal array is coupled with one semiconductor sensor of the semiconductor sensor array and the coupling comprises a contact between the semiconductor sensors and the crystal elements directly through an adhesive material. Appeal Br. 16. Appellant requests review of the following rejections from the Examiner’s Final Office Action dated September 27, 2019: I. Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 18, 26–28, 30, and 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wieczorek (US 2013/0153776 A1, published June 20, 2013) in view of Rose (US 2013/0161521 A1, published June 27, 2013). II. Claims 8, 9, and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wieczorek, Rose, and Ladebeck (US 2008/0033279 A1, published Feb. 7, 2008). Appeal 2020-004635 Application 15/809,708 3 III. Claims 6, 10, 21, and 31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wieczorek, Rose, and Sumiya (US 2005/0087693 A1, published Apr. 28, 2005). IV. Claims 22–24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wieczorek, Rose, Sumiya, and Tonami (US 2009/0310735 A1, published Dec. 17, 2009). Appellant presents specific arguments only for claim 1. See generally Appeal Br. 6–13. Appellant relies on these arguments to address the rejections of the remaining claims. Id. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the subject matter claimed and decide the appeal as to all grounds of rejections based on the arguments presented for claim 1. OPINION After review of the respective positions the Appellant provides in the Appeal Brief and the Examiner provides in the Final Action and the Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8–11, 18, 21–28, and 30–32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 essentially for reasons the Examiner presents. We add the following for emphasis. Independent claim 1 is directed to a positron emission tomography (PET) detector comprising a plurality of crystal elements forming an array, an array including a plurality of semiconductor sensors, and wherein more than one of the crystal elements is coupled to one semiconductor sensor directly through an adhesive material. We refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action for a complete statement of the rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 4–5 The Examiner finds Wieczorek teaches the crystal array and the semiconductor sensor array with the requisite coupling required by the Appeal 2020-004635 Application 15/809,708 4 claimed invention, but is silent as to directly coupling the semiconductor sensors and the crystal elements through an adhesive material. Id. at 4–5. The Examiner finds Rose teaches a PET detector comprising an optical coupling formed directly between the semiconductor sensor array and the crystal elements via an adhesive providing improved optical alignment and detection performance. Id. at 4–5; Rose ¶¶ 4, 34. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a direct coupling configuration in Wieczorek to provide improved optical alignment and detection performance. Final Act. 5. Appellant argues Rose fails to disclose direct coupling between the scintillator elements and the light sensor with an adhesive because Rose teaches the adhesive directly couples a light guide to the light sensor, and thus the light guide is disposed between the adhesive and the scintillator. Appeal Br. 8–10. Appellant argues that, although formed from the same materials, the light guide and the scintillator perform different functions and cannot be considered to be a single scintillator as the Examiner contends in the rejection.2 Id. at 11–12. In the Answer, the Examiner argues the scintillator and the light guide are formed unitarily from the same material and collectively constitute a single scintillator, thus the adhesive would directly couple this single scintillator to the semiconductor sensor as claimed. Ans. 4–5. Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s determination of obviousness. Rose describes the light guide 2 In support of this position Appellant relies on Exhibit 1 attached to the Appeal Brief, “Scintillators, Detectors for Particle Physics,” page 5, Manfred Krammer, Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna, Austria. Appeal 2020-004635 Application 15/809,708 5 and the scintillator are unitarily or integrally formed from a single piece of the same material, such as a crystalline material of bismuth germinate (BGO). Rose ¶¶ 30–31, 50–51. Rose teaches the distinction between the light guide and the scintillator is the presence of beveled surfaces on the light guide, which are etched into the unitary piece of material forming the two. Rose ¶¶ 36, 50–51. Rose further teaches the output surface of the light guide is coupled to the light (semiconductor) sensor through an adhesive. Rose ¶ 53, Fig. 5. The light guide and scintillator of Rose are unitarily formed of a crystal material, and therefore collectively constitute a single crystal element. Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, the instant claim language does not preclude the crystal element from performing the functions of a scintillator and a light guide. Notwithstanding this, both the light guide and scintillator of Rose are unitarily formed of a crystal material, and therefore collectively constitute a single crystal element as claimed, with an adhesive directly coupled to the crystals and the semiconductor sensor. Claim 1 does not require the adhesive to directly couple the semiconductor sensor and a scintillator or scintillating element through the adhesive. Instead, claim 1 recites the adhesive directly couples the crystal elements to the semiconductor sensor. As Rose teaches both the light guide and the scintillator are formed unitarily from the same crystalline BGO material, the two together form a single crystal element and, thus, the adhesive of Rose is directly coupled to the crystal elements and the semiconductor sensor, as required in instant claim 1. Rose ¶¶ 30–31, 53. Appeal 2020-004635 Application 15/809,708 6 Accordingly, we affirm the prior art rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8– 11, 18, 21–28, 30–32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the reasons the Examiner presents and we provide above. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 5, 11, 18, 26–28, 30, 32 103 Wieczorek, Rose 1, 3, 5, 11, 18, 26–28, 30, 32 8, 9, 25 103 Wieczorek, Rose, Ladebeck 8, 9, 25 6, 10, 21, 31 103 Wieczorek, Rose, Sumiya 6, 10, 21, 31 22–24 Wieczorek, Rose, Sumiya, Tonami 22–24 Overall Outcome 1, 3, 5, 6, 8– 11, 18, 21– 28, 30–32 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation