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 § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 10-13, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kanatzidis et al. (2020/0381573)
Regarding claim 1, Kanatzidis discloses a radiation detector, comprising: a radiation-sensitive semiconductor material substrate (Kanatzidis, Fig. 2A, [0007], photoactive semiconductor); a cathode electrode comprising a first metallic material having a work function that is greater than or equal to 4.6 eV disposed over a first surface of the radiation-sensitive semiconductor material substrate(Kanatzidis, Fig. 2A, [0007], high work function cathode); and a plurality of anode electrode electrodes comprising a second metallic material having a work function that is < 4.6 eV disposed over a second surface of the radiation- sensitive semiconductor material substrate (Kanatzidis, Fig. 2A, [0007], low work function anode).
Regarding claim 2, Kanatzidis further discloses the first metallic material directly contacts the first surface of the radiation-sensitive semiconductor material substrate; and the second metallic material directly contacts the second surface of the radiation-sensitive semiconductor material substrate. (Kanatzidis, Fig. 2A)
Regarding claim 3, Kanatzidis further discloses the first metallic material has a work function that is 5.0 eV. (Kanatzidis, [0007], selection of Ni for cathode, Fig. 9 indicating a work function of nickel of about 5.04)
Regarding claim 4, Kanatzidis further discloses the first metallic material has a work function that is 4.6 eV and < 4.8 eV (Kanatzidis, Fig. 9, selection of Fe)
Regarding claim 10, Kanatzidis further discloses the radiation-sensitive semiconductor substrate comprises cadmium zinc telluride (CZT). (Kanatzidis [0004])
Regarding claim 11, Kanatzidis discloses a radiation detector, comprising: a radiation-sensitive semiconductor material substrate (Kanatzidis, Fig. 2A, [0007], photoactive semiconductor); a cathode electrode comprising a metallic material disposed over a first surface of the radiation-sensitive semiconductor material substrate (Kanatzidis, Fig. 2A, [0007], high work function cathode), wherein the metallic material has a work function that is > 4.6 eV and < 4.8 eV (Kanatzidis, Fig. 9, Fe selection for cathode) and the metallic material directly contacts the first surface of the radiation-sensitive semiconductor material substrate (Kanatzidis, Fig. 2A), or the metallic material has a work function that is < 4.6 eV and the cathode electrode further comprises a semiconductor material layer directly contacts contacting the first surface of the radiation-sensitive semiconductor material substrate and the semiconductor material layer is located between the metallic material and the first surface of the semiconductor material substrate (non-limiting as unnecessary due to prior “or”); and a plurality of anode electrode electrodes disposed over a second surface of the radiation-sensitive semiconductor material substrate (Kanatzidis, Fig. 2A, [0007], low work function anode).
Regarding claim 12, Kanatzidis further discloses the at least one a plurality of anode electrode haselectrodes have a different material composition than the cathode electrode. (Kanatzidis, [0007])
Regarding claim 13, Kanatzidis further discloses the metallic material has the work function that is > 4.6 eV and < 4.8 eV, (Kanatzidis, Fig. 9, selection of Fe for cathode) directly contacts the first surface of the radiation-sensitive semiconductor material substrate (Kanatzidis, Fig. 2A), and provides a Schottky barrier that is between 0.48 eV and 0.68 eV (inherent property given the work function).
Regarding claim 16, Kanatzidis further discloses the radiation-sensitive semiconductor substrate comprises cadmium zinc telluride (CZT). (Kanatzidis, [0004])
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-9, 14, 15, 17-21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanatzidis in view of Chacinski et al. (2016/0172523).
Regarding claims 5-9, 14, 15, 17-22, and 24, these claims differ from Kanatzidis in the provision of an additional semiconductor material layer between the cathode (or anode) and the active semiconductor layer.
This layer, its material properties, its bandgap engineering etc. are taught by Chacinski et al. at [0041].
It would have been obvious to provide a thin hole-carrier blocking layer on the cathode side of the active layer in order to reduce the noise response of the detector. (Chacinski, [0041])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Chen reference have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 with respect to the Chen reference have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN C GUNBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-3107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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 571-272-2995. 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.
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884