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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-18 and 22) in the reply filed on January 22, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 19-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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) 1-4, 6-9, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenland et al. (US 2022/0230833; hereinafter Greenland) in view of Yun et al. (US 2015/0110252; hereinafter Yun).
Regarding claim 1, Greenland discloses a multi-metal (par. 106) patterned (figs. 4 and 16) anode, comprising: a substrate (13); and at least one group of disjointed circular (figs. 4 and 16) features (43) formed on the substrate (13), wherein the circular features are made from metal (par. 106).
However, Greenland fails to disclose different metals.
Yun teaches different metals (pars. 189 and Table II).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Greenland with the teaching of Yun, since it is 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. Furthermore, one would have been motivated to make such a modification for a more diverse spectrum (Yun: par. 189).
Note that recitations (i.e., for an X-ray detector) with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Also note a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation (i.e., for an X-ray detector) where the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Therefore, these recitations (i.e., for an X-ray detector) have not been given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 2, Greenland discloses wherein the circular features in different groups (fig. 16: groups in bottom left and right quadrants) have different radii (from the elliptical feature in the top right quadrant).
Regarding claim 3, Greenland discloses wherein the circular features in the same group have the same radii (fig. 16: for groups in the bottom left and right quadrants).
Regarding claim 4, Greenland discloses wherein each group comprises three circular features (fig. 16: in each quadrant).
Regarding claim 6, Greenland discloses wherein a plurality of groups of circular features (43) are radially arrayed (figs. 13-16: for a line of features that crosses the middle of the array, with the line divided into two groups) on the substrate (13).
Regarding claim 7, Greenland necessarily includes wherein an area of each group is equal to an area of a circle which encircles the circular features in the group (fig. 16: since any such arbitrary circle will have that area). Furthermore, this functional "wherein" statement does not define any structure and accordingly cannot serve to distinguish from the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Greenland necessarily includes wherein the area of the groups decrease with increasing radial distance from a center of the substrate (fig. 16: since any such arbitrary circle will have that area). Furthermore, this functional "wherein" statement does not define any structure and accordingly cannot serve to distinguish from the prior art.
Regarding claim 9, Greenland necessarily includes wherein the area of the groups increase with increasing radial distance from a center of the substrate (fig. 16: since any such arbitrary circle will have that area). Furthermore, this functional "wherein" statement does not define any structure and accordingly cannot serve to distinguish from the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Greenland discloses an X-ray system (fig. 4 and abstract), comprising: a cathode (11) configured to emit electrons (par. 43); a multi-metal (par. 106) patterned (fig. 4:43) anode (12) configured to emit X-rays responsive to the electrons striking the anode, the patterned anode comprises: a substrate (13); at least one group of disjointed circular (figs. 4 and 16) features (43) formed on the substrate, wherein each circular feature is made from a different metal (par. 106: such as tungsten, different from rhodium).
However, Greenland fails to disclose a detector configured to detect the X-rays and generate corresponding electrical signals.
Yun teaches a detector configured to detect the X-rays and generate corresponding electrical signals (par. 231).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Greenland with the teaching of Yun, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for more control (Yun: par. 231).
Note that recitations (i.e., for an X-ray detector) with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Also note a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation (i.e., for an X-ray detector) where the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Therefore, these recitations (i.e., for an X-ray detector) have not been given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 16, Greenland discloses wherein the circular features of different groups (fig. 16: groups in bottom left and right quadrants) have different radii (from the elliptical feature in the top right quadrant).
Regarding claim 17, Greenland discloses wherein the circular features of a same group have same radii (fig. 16: for groups in the bottom left and right quadrants).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenland and Yun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maeda (US 2017/0263412).
Greenland as modified above suggests claim 1. Greenland further discloses wherein the substrate is made of a material (13).
However, Greenland fails to disclose diamond.
Maeda teaches diamond (par. 7).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Greenland with the teaching of Maeda, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for low X-ray absorption and good thermal conductivity (Maeda: par. 7).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenland in view of Maeda.
Greenland discloses a patterned anode (fig. 4), comprising: a substrate (13); and at least one circular (figs. 4 and 16) feature (43) formed on the substrate (13), wherein the circular feature (43) is made from a metal (par. 106).
However, Greenland fails to disclose diamond.
Maeda teaches diamond (par. 7).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Greenland with the teaching of Maeda, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for low X-ray absorption and good thermal conductivity (Maeda: par. 7).
Note that recitations (i.e., for an X-ray detector) with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Also note a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation (i.e., for an X-ray detector) where the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Therefore, these recitations (i.e., for an X-ray detector) have not been given patentable weight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 11-14 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art (i.e., Greenland) discloses a multi-metal (par. 106) patterned (figs. 4 and 16) anode, comprising: a substrate (13); and at least one group of disjointed circular (figs. 4 and 16) features (43) formed on the substrate (13), wherein the circular features are made from metal (par. 106). The prior art (e.g., Yun) also discloses different metals (pars. 189 and Table II).
However, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest a multi-metal patterned anode for an X-ray detector, including: wherein each group comprises three circular features, and wherein a first circular feature is composed of tungsten, a second circular feature is composed of samarium, and a third circular feature is composed of silver, in combination with all of the other recitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 11 and its dependent claims, the prior art (i.e., Greenland) discloses a multi-metal (par. 106) patterned (figs. 4 and 16) anode, comprising: a substrate (13); and a plurality of groups of disjointed circular (figs. 4 and 16) features (43) formed on the substrate (13), the plurality of groups radially arrayed on the substrate (figs. 13-16: for a line of features that crosses the middle of the array, with the line divided into two groups), wherein each circular feature is made from metal (par. 106). Furthermore, the prior art (e.g., Maeda) discloses diamond (par. 7). The prior art (e.g., Yun) also discloses different metals (pars. 189 and Table II).
However, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest a multi-metal patterned anode for an X-ray detector, including: wherein each circular feature is made from a different metal, and wherein radii of the groups decrease with increasing radial distance from a center of the diamond substrate, in combination with all of the other recitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art (i.e., Greenland) discloses an X-ray system (fig. 4 and abstract), comprising: a cathode (11) configured to emit electrons (par. 43); a multi-metal (par. 106) patterned (fig. 4:43) anode (12) configured to emit X-rays responsive to the electrons striking the anode, the patterned anode comprises: a substrate (13); at least one group of disjointed circular (figs. 4 and 16) features (43) formed on the substrate, wherein each circular feature is made from a different metal (par. 106: such as tungsten, different from rhodium). The prior art (i.e., Yun) also discloses a detector configured to detect the X-rays and generate corresponding electrical signals (par. 231).
However, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest an X-ray system, including wherein each group comprises three circular features, and wherein a first circular feature is composed of tungsten, a second circular feature is composed of samarium, and a third circular feature is composed of silver, in combination with all of the other recitations in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chih-Cheng Kao whose telephone number is (571)272-2492. 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, 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.
/Chih-Cheng Kao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884