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 status: amended claims: 1,8, 15; canceled claims: 7, 9-11, 14, 18, 20; new claims: 21-22; the rest is unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new secondary reference is currently being used in the present application.
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, 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 Tumer et al. (US 2009/0290680 A1; pub. Nov. 26, 2009).
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 has a first pixel dimension selected to capture charged particles in a first energy level range (para. [0032] teaches a first pixel being Silicon and has a 300 mu thickness, Silicon has a band gap of around 1.1eV, this means silicon requires more energy to excite electrons from the valence to the conduction band, making it less sensitive to low-energy photons or weak signals) and wherein a second subset of pixels of the plurality of pixels is formed from a second material (para. [0032], [0058]) and has a second pixel dimension selected to capture charged particles in a second energy level range (para. [0032] teaches a second pixel being Germanium and has a 50 mu thickness, Germanium has a band gap of around 0.67, this means silicon requires less energy to excite electrons from the valence to the conduction band, making it very sensitive to low-energy photons or weak signals ) the first material being different than the second material (para. [0032], [0058]); the second energy level range being different than the first energy level range, and the second pixel dimension being different than the first pixel dimension (para. [0032] teaches 2 different materials which are Silicon & Germanium); and a plurality of electrical connections disposed between the electronic unit and the plurality of pixels (fig.1 item 30).
Bethke is silent about: the associated electronic units coupled to the first subset of pixels and those coupled to the second subset of pixels share a common electronic-unit dimension; 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 Tumer et al. disclose: the associated electronic units coupled to the first subset of pixels and those coupled to the second subset of pixels share a common electronic-unit dimension (para. [0119], [0074]); 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 (para. [0119], [0074]) motivated by the benefits for producing low cost pixel detectors (Tumer et al. para. [0072]).
In light of the benefits for producing low cost pixel detectors as taught by Tumer 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 Tumer 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, Tumer et al. disclose: each pixel of the first subset of pixels has a different shape than its associated electronic unit (para. [0119], [0074]) motivated by the benefits for producing low cost pixel detectors (Tumer et al. para. [0072]).
Regarding claim 8, Bethke and Tumer et al. disclose: An apparatus comprising: a plurality of electronic units arranged in an array, each electronic unit defining a first square profile having an electronic-unit length and an electronic-unit width; 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 rectangular profile that is different than a the first square profile of its associated electronic unit; and wherein each pixel of a second subset of pixels of the plurality of pixels defines a second square profile, wherein the rectangular profile of each pixel of the first subset of pixels is different than the second square profile of each pixel of the second subset of pixels; 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 15, Bethke and Tumer 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 its associated electronic unit; 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; wherein 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; and wherein each pixel of the first subset of pixels extends across multiple electronic units in at least one direction; 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 1).
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, Tumer et al. disclose: each pixel of the first subset of pixels has a different size than their associated electronic unit (para. [0119], [0074]) motivated by the benefits for producing low cost pixel detectors (Tumer et al. para. [0072]).
Claims 2, 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 Tumer et al. (US 2009/0290680 A1; pub. Nov. 26, 2009) 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 Tumer et al. with the teachings of Rissi et al. (1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Bethke, Tumer 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 5-6, 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 Tumer et al. (US 2009/0290680 A1; pub. Nov. 26, 2009) 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 Tumer 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 12, the combination of Bethke, Tumer 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, Tumer 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).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bethke (US 2009/0200478 A1; pub. Aug. 13, 2009) in view of Tumer et al. (US 2009/0290680 A1; pub. Nov. 26, 2009) and further in view of Bernard et al. (US 2022/0381713 A1; pub. Dec. 1, 2022).
Regarding claim 21, the combined references are silent about: a spectroscopic apparatus configured to direct charged particles toward the plurality of pixels, wherein the plurality of pixels forms an electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS) sensor array.
In a similar field of endeavor Bernard et al. disclose: a spectroscopic apparatus configured to direct charged particles toward the plurality of pixels, wherein the plurality of pixels forms an electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS) sensor array (para. [0163], [0179]) motivated by the benefits for a charge particle detector with improved efficiency (Bernard et al. para. [0013]).
In light of the benefits for a charge particle detector with improved efficiency as taught by Bernard 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 Tumer et al. with the teachings of Bernard et al.
Regarding claim 22, Bernard et al. disclose: dedicated pixel electronics associated with pixels (para. [0178]), the pixels can have any shape or array arrangement (para. [0179]) motivated by the benefits for a charge particle detector with improved efficiency (Bernard et al. para. [0013]).
Bernard et al. are silent about: a spectroscopic apparatus configured to direct charged particles toward the plurality of pixels, wherein the plurality of pixels forms an electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS) sensor array. However, one of ordinary skill in the art could have used the teachings of para. [0178]-[-[0179] of Bernard et al. to have: a spectroscopic apparatus configured to direct charged particles toward the plurality of pixels, wherein the plurality of pixels forms an electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS) sensor array.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9-6PM.
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
Prosecution Insights