CTFR 18/316,379 CTFR 71281 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Election/Restrictions 08-06 AIA Claim s 8-17 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/17/25 . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Szeles is silent as to the thickness relationship between electrode 36/8 and electrode 40 and does not state that the drawings are to scale. In response, in paragraph [0048], Szeles describes a conductor 36 that defines a corresponding segmented electrode 8. Each segmented electrode 8 can be a single conductor or a multi-layer stack of conductors. Further, in paragraph [0050], the height and/or location of electrode 40 can also be optimized. Accordingly, the discussion of a multi-layer stack of conductors and optimization of electrodes suggests electrode 36/8 and electrode 40 may have different thicknesses based on routine optimization and/or experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. As such, even if Szeles does not state that the drawings are to scale, the reference is not silent as to a thickness relationship between two electrodes. For example, one can be multi-layered and one can be optimized. In addition, one cannot show nonobviousness by arguing against references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. See MPEP 2145. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive to overcome the rejection . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0203514 (Szeles), cited by Applicant in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,223,982 (Chen) . Szeles discloses (at least Fig. 8) 1. A radiation detection element comprising: a single-crystal semiconductor substrate 2 ([0028]) configured to convert incident radiation into an electric charge (any substrate can be “configured” to perform this type of conversion); a first electrode 36 / 8 provided on a first main surface (top) of the single-crystal semiconductor substrate 2, the first electrode 36 / 8 having a first thickness; a second electrode 40 provided so as to face a side surface of the single-crystal semiconductor substrate 2, the second electrode 40 having a second thickness that is smaller than the first thickness; and an electrode 4 provided on a second main surface (bottom) of the single-crystal semiconductor substrate 2, the second main surface (bottom) being on an opposite side of the first main surface (top). Szeles fails to explicitly disclose cathode electrodes and an anode electrode. Chen teaches (at least Figs. 3, 8-12) A radiation detection element comprising: a cathode electrode 21 on a top surface and a side surface of a single-crystal semiconductor substrate 3; and an anode electrode 23 on a bottom surface of the semiconductor substrate 3. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a semiconductor substrate having cathode electrodes on two perpendicular surfaces and an anode electrode on a surface opposite to one of the surfaces in Szeles. The motivation would be for steering the field towards the anode, to make a continuous cathode, and to ensure the resulting device leakage current does not increase to an excessive level as taught by Chen (column 3, lines 57-63; column 7, lines 25-46). Further, such an arrangement is well-known in the radiation detector art. See MPEP 2144.03. Chen teaches (Summary) 2. The radiation detection element according to claim 1, wherein the first cathode electrode and the second cathode electrode are integrated (continuous). Chen teaches (column 7, line 38 to column 8, line 11) 3. The radiation detection element according to claim 1, further comprising an insulating layer 22 provided between the side surface of the single-crystal semiconductor substrate 3 and the second cathode electrode 21. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an insulating layer in Szeles. The motivation would be to protect the side surface and isolate an electrical path as taught by Chen (column 8, lines 47-64). Szeles discloses ([0038]) 5. The radiation detection element according to claim 1, wherein the single-crystal semiconductor substrate 2 includes cadmium telluride. Szeles discloses ([0038]) 6. The radiation detection element according to claim 1, wherein the single-crystal semiconductor substrate 2 includes cadmium zinc telluride . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szeles in view of Chen as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,905,264 (Shahar) . The combination of references fails to teach 4. The radiation detection element according to claim 3, wherein the second cathode electrode and the insulating layer have respective thicknesses that are determined such that a sum of the thickness of the second cathode electrode and the thickness of the insulating layer is a predetermined value and that the insulating layer is thicker than the second cathode electrode. Shahar teaches (at least Fig. 3A) A radiation detection element comprising: wherein the second cathode electrode 212 and the insulating layer 208 have respective thicknesses that are determined such that a sum of the thickness of the second cathode electrode 212 and the thickness of the insulating layer 208 is a predetermined value and that the insulating layer 208 is thicker than the second cathode electrode 212. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an insulating layer thicker than a second cathode layer in Szeles. The motivation would be a matter a matter of routine optimization as shown in Shahar. See MPEP 2144.05 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szeles in view of Chen as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,344,331 (Call) . The combination of references fails to teach 7. The radiation detection element according to claim 1, wherein the single-crystal semiconductor substrate includes any of cadmium tungstate, sodium iodide, and cesium iodide. Call teaches ([column 4, lines 54-63]) A radiation detection element comprising: wherein the single-crystal semiconductor substrate 14 includes any of cadmium tungstate, sodium iodide, and cesium iodide. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide select the optimum material in Szeles. The motivation would be based on its suitability for the intended use as discussed in Call. See MPEP 2144.07 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2018/0033681 (Ishikawa), 2021/0218067 (Cai), and U.S. Patent No. 7,728,304 (Chen) teach a radiation detector element having one cathode electrode thicker than another cathode electrode. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M ARROYO whose telephone number is (703)756-1576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 A.M. E.T. - 5:00 P.M. E.T.). 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571.272.1236. 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. /TERESA M. ARROYO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/316,379 Page 2 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/316,379 Page 3 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/316,379 Page 4 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/316,379 Page 5 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/316,379 Page 6 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/316,379 Page 7 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/316,379 Page 8 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/316,379 Page 9 Art Unit: 2893
Prosecution Insights