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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, 15, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bethke (US 2009/0200478 A1; pub. Aug. 13, 2009) in view of Rissi et al. (US 2024/0413184 A1; pub. Dec. 12, 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Bethke discloses: An apparatus comprising: an electronic unit (fig.1 item 20); a plurality of pixels (para. [0013]), each pixel of the plurality of pixels coupled to the electronic unit (fig.1 items 12, 14, 20, 30); wherein a first subset of pixels of the plurality of pixels is formed from a first material (para. [0032], [0058]), and wherein a second subset of pixels of the plurality of pixels is formed from a second material (para. [0032], [0058]), the first material being different than the second material (para. [0032], [0058]); and a plurality of electrical connections disposed between the electronic unit and the plurality of pixels (fig.1 item 30).
Bethke is silent about: a plurality of electronic units arranged in an array; a plurality of pixels, each pixel of the plurality of pixels coupled to an associated electronic unit of the plurality of electronic units; and a plurality of electrical connections disposed between the plurality of electronic units and the plurality of pixels, where each electrical connection connects a respective electronic unit with an associated pixel.
In a similar field of endeavor Rissi et al. disclose: a plurality of electronic units (fig.1 item 21i) arranged in an array; a plurality of pixels (fig.1 item 12i, para. [0010]), each pixel of the plurality of pixels coupled to an associated electronic unit of the plurality of electronic units (fig.1 pixels 12i is connected to readout 21i through electrical connection 4); and a plurality of electrical connections disposed between the plurality of electronic units and the plurality of pixels, where each electrical connection connects a respective electronic unit with an associated pixel (fig.1 pixels 12i is connected to readout 21i through electrical connection 4) motivated by the benefits for an adaptable detector (Rissi et al. para. [0020]).
In light of the benefits for an adaptable detector as taught by Rissi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Bethke with the teachings of Rissi et al.
Regarding claim 3, Bethke discloses: at least one of the first material and the second material is formed from stacking a plurality of layers (fig.1 items 12 & 14).
Regarding claim 4, Rissi et al. disclose: each pixel of the first subset of pixels has a different shape than its associated electronic unit (para. [0020]) motivated by the benefits for an adaptable detector (Rissi et al. para. [0020]).
Regarding claim 8, Bethke and Rissi et al. disclose: An apparatus comprising: a plurality of electronic units arranged in an array; a plurality of pixels, each pixel of the plurality of pixels coupled to an associated electronic unit of the plurality of electronic units; wherein each pixel of a first subset of pixels of the plurality of pixels defines a shape that is different than a shape of an associated electronic unit; and a plurality of electrical connections disposed between the plurality of electronic units and the plurality of pixels, wherein each electrical connection connects a respective electronic unit with an associated pixel (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 4).
Regarding claim 9, Rissi et al. disclose: the shape of the first subset of pixels comprises a rectangle, and the shape of the associated electronic unit comprises a square (para. [0017], [0043]) motivated by the benefits for an adaptable detector (Rissi et al. para. [0020]).
Regarding claim 10, Bethke discloses: the first subset of pixels is a first material and a second subset of pixels is a second material that is different than the first material (para. [0032], [0058]).
Regarding claim 15, Bethke and Rissi et al. disclose: An apparatus comprising: a plurality of electronic units arranged in an array; a plurality of pixels, each pixel of the plurality of pixels coupled to an associated electronic unit of the plurality of electronic units; wherein each pixel of a first subset of pixels of the plurality of pixels defines a shape that is different than a shape of the associated electronic units; wherein the first subset of pixels of the plurality of pixels is formed from a first material, and wherein a second subset of pixels of the plurality of pixels is formed from a second material, the first material being different than the second material; and a plurality of electrical connections disposed between the plurality of electronic units and the plurality of pixels, where each electrical connection connects a respective electronic unit with an associated pixel (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 4).
Regarding claim 17, Bethke discloses: at least one of the first material and the second material is formed from stacking a plurality of layers (fig.1 items 12 & 14).
Regarding claim 19, Rissi et al. disclose: each pixel of the first subset of pixels has a different size than their associated electronic unit (para. [0020]) motivated by the benefits for an adaptable detector (Rissi et al. para. [0020]).
Claims 2, 11, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bethke (US 2009/0200478 A1; pub. Aug. 13, 2009) in view of Rissi et al. (US 2024/0413184 A1; pub. Dec. 12, 2024) and further in view of Rissi et al. (1) (US 2024/0162002 A1; pub. May 16, 2024).
Regarding claim 2, the combined references are silent about: the first material is silicon (Si), and the second material is cadmium telluride (CdTe).
In a similar field of endeavor Rissi et al. (1) disclose: the first material is silicon (Si), and the second material is cadmium telluride (CdTe) (para. [0089]) motivated by the benefits for a hybrid pixel detector (Rissi et al. (1) para. [0008]).
In light of the benefits for a hybrid pixel detector as taught by Rissi et al. (1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Bethke and Rissi et al. with the teachings of Rissi et al. (1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Bethke, Rissi et al. and Rissi et al. (1) disclose: the first material is silicon (Si), and the second material is cadmium telluride (CdTe) (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 2).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Bethke, Rissi et al. and Rissi et al. (1) disclose: the first subset of pixels is configured to convert a charged particle of a first energy level range to an electronic signal; and wherein a second subset of pixels of the plurality of pixels is configured to convert a charged particle of a second energy level range to an electronic signal, wherein the first energy level range and the second energy level range are different (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 2, Rissi et al. (1) teach Si & CdTe which are the same material described in para. [0040] of the specification of the present application).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Bethke, Rissi et al. and Rissi et al. (1) disclose: the first material is silicon (Si), and the second material is cadmium telluride (CdTe) (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 2).
Claims 5-7, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bethke (US 2009/0200478 A1; pub. Aug. 13, 2009) in view of Rissi et al. (US 2024/0413184 A1; pub. Dec. 12, 2024) and further in view of Taboada et al. (US 2023/0333267 A1; pub. Oct. 19, 2023).
Regarding claim 5, the combined references are silent about: each pixel of the first subset of pixels has a different size than its associated electronic unit.
In a similar field of endeavor Taboada et al. disclose: each pixel of the first subset of pixels has a different size than its associated electronic unit (para. [0020]) motivated by the benefits for a scalable detector (Taboada et al. para. [0020]).
In light of the benefits for a scalable detector as taught by Taboada et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Bethke and Rissi et al. with the teachings of Taboada et al.
Regarding claim 6, Taboada et al. disclose: each pixel of the first subset of pixels extends across multiple electronic units in at least one direction (para. [0020]) motivated by the benefits for a scalable detector (Taboada et al. para. [0020]).
Regarding claim 7, Taboada et al. disclose: each pixel of the first subset of pixels has a different shape than each pixel of the second subset of pixels (para. [0020], [0074]) motivated by the benefits for a scalable detector (Taboada et al. para. [0020]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Bethke, Rissi et al. and Taboada et al. disclose: each pixel of the first subset of pixels has a different size than its associated electronic unit (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 5).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Bethke, Rissi et al. and Taboada et al. disclose: each pixel of the first subset of pixels extends across multiple electronic units in at least one direction (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 5).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Bethke, Rissi et al. and Taboada et al. disclose: the shape of each pixel of the first subset of pixels is different than a shape defined by each pixel of the second subset of pixels (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 7).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Bethke, Rissi et al. and Taboada et al. disclose: each pixel of the first subset of pixels extends across multiple electronic units in at least one direction (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884