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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-11 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 difference of a value of electron affinity of the ionizing radiation conversion layer minus a value of work function of the first electrode is greater than or equal to 0 eV and less than or equal to 0.4 eV.” It is unclear what “difference” is being limited. For purposes of a prior art search, the Examiner is interpreting the difference to be the difference between the value of electron affinity of the ionizing radiation conversion layer and the value of work function of the first electrode and the difference is determined by subtracting the value of the work function of the first electrode from the value of electron affinity of the ionizing radiation conversion layer. Subtracting a second value from a first provides a difference, but a statement of “the difference of X minus Y is Z” is not grammatically correct. Similar grammatical errors are present in claims 2-3 and 11. Claim 1 recites “the second electrode contains at least one selected from the group consisting of second metals and metal oxides.” It is unclear if the second electrode is required to be a plurality of second metals or a plurality of metal oxides or merely the group includes a generic list of second metals and a generic list of metal oxides. Additionally, it is unclear whether “second metal” means any metal, any metal different than the “first metal” of the first electrode, or a second group metal from the periodic table of elements. Claims 7 and 8 further limit alternatives presented in claim 1. This makes it unclear whether or not these limitations are required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 2019/0140181) . Regarding claim s 1 , 6 , 8 , and 11 , Huang teaches a n ionizing radiation conversion device (Abstract) comprising: a first electrode (10) ; a second electrode (30) ; and an ionizing radiation conversion layer (20) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (Figs. 1G and 1H) , wherein the first electrode contains a first metal (claim 7) , the second electrode contains at least one selected from the group consisting of second metals (claim 7) , the ionizing radiation conversion layer contains a perovskite compound (Abstract) , and the difference of a value of electron affinity of the ionizing radiation conversion layer minus a value of work function of the first electrode is greater than or equal to 0 eV and less than or equal to 0.4 eV (ABX 3 with A as formamidinum , B is PB 2 + , and X is a halide anion ([0010]) and first electrode being Ga ( claims 7 ) provides this characteristic ) , wherein the ionizing radiation detection method detects, with the ionizing radiation conversion device, charges generated by the perovskite compound upon irradiation with an ionizing radiation (Abstract) . Regarding claim 2 , Huang teaches the difference of the value of electron affinity of the ionizing radiation conversion layer minus a value of work function of the second electrode is greater than or equal to 0 eV and less than or equal to 0.4 eV (ABX 3 with A as formamidinum , B is PB 2 + , and X is a halide anion ([0010]) and second electrode being Ga (claims 7) provides this characteristic) . Regarding claim 4 , Huang teaches the perovskite compound includes two or more kinds of cations, and one or more kinds of anions ([0010]) . Regarding claim 5 , Huang teaches the two or more kinds of cations include at least one selected from the group consisting of Pb 2+ , Sn 2+ , Ge 2+ , and Bi 3+ ( Pb 2+ [0010]). Regarding claim 9 , Huang teaches the first electrode contains the same metal as the second electrode (claim 7) . Regarding claim 10 , Huang teaches the ionizing radiation conversion layer is in contact with the first electrode and the second electrode (Figs. 1G and 1H) . 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) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2019/0140181) in view of Wu et al . (US 2005/0090874) . Regarding claims 3 and 7 , Huang does not teach the second metal is at least one selected from the group consisting of Pt, and Se. However, Wu teaches Pt to be used in a bottom electrode layer with a perovskite active layer ([0076]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to have the second meta l be Pt, 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. It necessarily follows that the difference of the sum of the value of electron affinity of the ionizing radiation conversion layer and a value of forbidden band gap of the ionizing radiation conversion layer minus a value of work function of the second electrode is greater than or equal to -0.4 eV and less than or equal to 0 eV. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Carolyn Fin whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1286 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Uzma Alam can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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