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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the set of collecting microstrips” in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the set of wide width drift microstrips” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the set of narrow width drift microstrips” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also indefinite for the same reasons.
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 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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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 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 of this title, 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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hullinger et al. (US 2010/0314706) in view of Matsunaga et al. (US 2022/0093814).
In regard to claim 1, Hullinger et al. discloses a large-area semiconductor drift detector comprising:
(a) a substrate layer (e.g., see “… container 102 can allow x-rays, represented by line 103, to pass into the container …” in Fig. 10 and paragraph 35, wherein the container’s bottom plate can be labeled as a substrate layer);
(b) a semiconductor layer (e.g., see “… substrate 12 … entrance window layer, or bottom surface, faces incoming x-rays … made of standard semiconductor materials such as silicon, germanium, gallium arsenide, etc. …” in Fig. 9 and paragraphs 24 and 36);
(c) a set of drift microstrips positioned between the substrate layer and the semiconductor layer (e.g., see “… electric drift field … field plate rings 94a-d …” in Fig. 9 and paragraphs 30 and 32); and
(d) a collecting electrode (e.g., see “… anode 25 …” in Fig. 9 and paragraph 25) positioned between the substrate layer and the semiconductor layer and in a different plane than the set of drift microstrips (e.g., see “… insulating layer 98, such as an oxide layer. Each field plate ring 94a-d can be individually biased V1-4 …” in Fig. 9 and paragraph 32),
wherein the set of drift microstrips shape an electric field and direct charges within the drift detector towards the collecting electrode (e.g., “… silicon drift detector, hereinafter SDD … as discussed above regarding SDD 80, electron drift speed towards the anode 25 may be improved by creating the widest ring at the outer perimeter 12c and using gradually decreasing ring widths towards the center …” in paragraphs 4 and 34).
The detector of Hullinger et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… anode …” such as an additional collecting electrode. However, “… anode …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… silicon drift detector (SDD) … If radiation is incident into the semiconductor part, electric charges are generated inside the semiconductor part and move in accordance with the electric field. A part of the electric charges are collected to the first electrode, from which a signal corresponding to the amount of electric charges is output. Furthermore, some of the conventional radiation detection elements include ones provided with multiple first electrodes …” in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Matsunaga et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted known conventional electrodes (e.g., comprising details such as “multiple first electrodes”, in order to achieve additional measurements) for the unspecified electrodes of Hullinger et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide known conventional electrodes (e.g., comprising details such as a set of collecting electrodes) as the unspecified electrodes of Hullinger et al.
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1, Hullinger et al. also disclose a top planar electrode located on a side of the semiconductor layer opposite the set of drift microstrips and the collecting electrode (e.g., see “… entrance window layer 26 at one surface of the substrate 12b, and an anode 25 at the opposite surface 12a of the substrate …” in Fig. 9 and paragraph 25).
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hullinger et al. in view of Matsunaga et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Hall et al. (US 2021/0335866).
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 1, the detector of Hullinger et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… electric drift field …” such as a top set of drift microstrips located on a side of the semiconductor layer opposite the set of drift microstrips and the set of collecting electrodes. However, “… electric drift field …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… While SDDs are traditionally used for energy resolution in particle counting experiments, the described embodiments seek to use SDD-based devices with transient bias profiles to achieve signal stretching with high temporal resolution capabilities … semiconductor has a row of cathode strips above and below (denoted Cn-1, Cn and Cn+1 in FIG. 2), with each cathode on the top (or front) surface, in this example configuration, sharing the same potential (denoted Vi for the i-th cathode in FIG. 1) as the corresponding cathode on the bottom (or back) surface …” in paragraphs 31 and 33 of Hall et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted known conventional electrodes (e.g., comprising details such as “semiconductor has a row of cathode strips above and below”, in order to achieve “high temporal resolution capabilities”) for the unspecified electrodes of Hullinger et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide known conventional electrodes (e.g., comprising details such as a top set of drift microstrips located on a side of the semiconductor layer opposite the set of drift microstrips and the set of collecting electrodes) as the unspecified electrodes of Hullinger et al.
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 3, the detector of Hullinger et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… electric drift field …” such as the top set of drift microstrips comprises a set of wide width drift microstrips and a set of narrow width drift microstrips. However, “… electric drift field …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see the “Pull-up cathode” wider than “Drift cathodes” with “15 mm” scale in Figs. 10A-C of Hall et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted known conventional electrodes (e.g., comprising details such as “Pull-up cathode” and “Drift cathodes”, in order to achieve “high temporal resolution capabilities”) for the unspecified electrodes of Hullinger et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide known conventional electrodes (e.g., comprising details such as the top set of drift microstrips comprises a set of wide width drift microstrips and a set of narrow width drift microstrips) as the unspecified electrodes of Hullinger et al.
In regard to claim 7 which is dependent on claim 3 in so far as understood, the detector of Hullinger et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… electric drift field …” such as the set of wide width drift microstrips are in a same vertical plane as each of set of collecting electrodes. However, “… electric drift field …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see the “Readout anodes” and “Drift cathodes” with “15 mm” scale in Figs. 10A-C of Hall et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted known conventional electrodes (e.g., comprising details such as “Readout anodes” and “Drift cathodes”, in order to achieve “high temporal resolution capabilities”) for the unspecified electrodes of Hullinger et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide known conventional electrodes (e.g., comprising details such as the set of wide width drift microstrips are in a same vertical plane as each of set of collecting electrodes) as the unspecified electrodes of Hullinger et al.
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 7 in so far as understood, the detector of Hullinger et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… electric drift field …” such as a width of each of the set of wide width drift microstrips is larger than a width of each of the set of collecting electrodes. However, “… electric drift field …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… cathodes below any specific read-out anode strip can be configured, by changing its voltage, to push the electron cloud toward that specific read-out anode strip. While FIG. SC shows a single collection anode, it is understood that additional readout anodes can be added to enable sampling of the electron cloud at multiple locations …” in paragraph 46 of Hall et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted known conventional electrodes (e.g., comprising details such as “additional readout anodes”, in order to achieve “high temporal resolution capabilities”) for the unspecified electrodes of Hullinger et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide known conventional electrodes (e.g., comprising details such as a width of each of the set of wide width drift microstrips is larger than a width of each of the set of collecting electrodes) as the unspecified electrodes of Hullinger et al.
In regard to claim 9 which is dependent on claim 8 in so far as understood, the detector of Hullinger et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… electric drift field …” such as a width of each of the set of narrow width drift microstrips is a same as a width of each of the set of collecting electrodes. However, “… electric drift field …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… cathodes below any specific read-out anode strip can be configured, by changing its voltage, to push the electron cloud toward that specific read-out anode strip. While FIG. SC shows a single collection anode, it is understood that additional readout anodes can be added to enable sampling of the electron cloud at multiple locations …” in paragraph 46 of Hall et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted known conventional electrodes (e.g., comprising details such as “additional readout anodes”, in order to achieve “high temporal resolution capabilities”) for the unspecified electrodes of Hullinger et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide known conventional electrodes (e.g., comprising details such as a width of each of the set of narrow width drift microstrips is a same as a width of each of the set of collecting electrodes) as the unspecified electrodes of Hullinger et al.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hullinger et al. in view of Matsunaga et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Kuvvetli et al. (US 2020/0033489).
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 1 in so far as understood, the detector of Hullinger et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… anode …” such as the set of drift microstrips and the set of collecting microstrips are staggered with respect to each other in a vertical plane. However, “… anode …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… on the second side 409 is 10 elongated parallel anode strip electrodes 460-469 with a pitch (P2) and 28 elongated parallel drift strip electrodes 431-438 … anode strip electrodes 460-469 each have a length (L2) and a width (W2), and the drift strip electrodes 431-438 each have a length (L3) and a width (W3). In this embodiment L1=L2=L3, and (W2=W3)<<W1. The anode strip electrodes 460-469 and the drift strip electrodes 431-438 are both extending along a second axis 481 … voltage source 405 is further configured to provide the drift strip electrodes 431-438 with a potential being negative relative to the potential of the anode strip electrodes 460-469, whereby the electrons are focused towards the anode strip electrodes 460-469 …” in Fig. 4b and paragraph 81 of Kuvvetli et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted known conventional electrodes (e.g., comprising details such as “on the second side 409 is 10 elongated parallel anode strip electrodes 460-469 with a pitch (P2) and 28 elongated parallel drift strip electrodes 431-438”, in order for “electrons are focused towards the anode strip electrodes 460-469”) for the unspecified electrodes of Hullinger et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide known conventional electrodes (e.g., comprising details such as the set of drift microstrips and the set of collecting microstrips are staggered with respect to each other in a vertical plane) as the unspecified electrodes of Hullinger et al.
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1, the detector of Hullinger et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… anode …” such as a width of each of the set of drift microstrips is a same as a width of each of the set of collecting electrodes. However, “… anode …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… on the second side 409 is 10 elongated parallel anode strip electrodes 460-469 with a pitch (P2) and 28 elongated parallel drift strip electrodes 431-438 … anode strip electrodes 460-469 each have a length (L2) and a width (W2), and the drift strip electrodes 431-438 each have a length (L3) and a width (W3). In this embodiment L1=L2=L3, and (W2=W3)<<W1. The anode strip electrodes 460-469 and the drift strip electrodes 431-438 are both extending along a second axis 481 … voltage source 405 is further configured to provide the drift strip electrodes 431-438 with a potential being negative relative to the potential of the anode strip electrodes 460-469, whereby the electrons are focused towards the anode strip electrodes 460-469 …” in Fig. 4b and paragraph 81 of Kuvvetli et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted known conventional electrodes (e.g., comprising details such as “on the second side 409 is 10 elongated parallel anode strip electrodes 460-469 with a pitch (P2) and 28 elongated parallel drift strip electrodes 431-438” with “W2=W3”, in order for “electrons are focused towards the anode strip electrodes 460-469”) for the unspecified electrodes of Hullinger et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide known conventional electrodes (e.g., comprising details such as a width of each of the set of drift microstrips is a same as a width of each of the set of collecting electrodes) as the unspecified electrodes of Hullinger et al.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hullinger et al. in view of Matsunaga et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Weinberg (US 2009/0179155).
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 1, the detector of Hullinger et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… made of standard semiconductor materials such as silicon, germanium, gallium arsenide, etc. …” such as the semiconductor layer comprises amorphous selenium; lead-based organic perovskites, bismuth-based organic perovskites, lead oxide, bismuth iodide, mercuric iodide, quantum dot based semiconductors, thallium bromide and amorphous silicon. However, “… made of standard semiconductor materials such as silicon, germanium, gallium arsenide, etc. …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… nanoparticles 14 (also referred to as quantum dots) are composed of a material other than lead sulfide. For example, the quantum dots 14 may be composed of an amorphous semiconductor, a crystalline semiconductor, an insulator, lead telluride, lead selenide, mercuric iodide, thallium bromide, cadmium zinc telluride, or cadmium telluride, or of a mixture of these compounds. In an alternative embodiment, the quantum dots 14 may be composed of a low atomic number material (e.g., average Z below 30), such as silicon … system of electrodes to be constructed is similar to those in silicon drift detector, where the drift time is measured to derive position of the radiation interaction …” in paragraphs 78, 79, and 100 of Weinberg). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional substrate (e.g., comprising details such as “quantum dots 14 may be composed of a low atomic number material (e.g., average Z below 30), such as silicon”, in order for “the drift time is measured to derive position of the radiation interaction”) for the unspecified substrate of Hullinger et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional substrate (e.g., comprising details such as the semiconductor layer comprises amorphous selenium; lead-based organic perovskites, bismuth-based organic perovskites, lead oxide, bismuth iodide, mercuric iodide, quantum dot based semiconductors, thallium bromide and amorphous silicon) as the unspecified substrate of Hullinger et al.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hullinger et al. in view of Matsunaga et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Morichi et al. (US 2011/0012216).
In regard to claim 11 which is dependent on claim 1, the detector of Hullinger et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… anode …” such as the set of collecting electrodes are a set of dual readout resistive electrodes or a set of single readout metal collecting electrodes. However, “… anode …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… silicon drift detector (SDD) … In the y direction, this information is given by the weighting of the signal coming on FETs located at both ends of the anode, if these anode pads are resistive. …” in paragraphs 2 and 145 of Morichi et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted known conventional electrodes (e.g., comprising details such as “weighting of the signal coming on FETs located at both ends of the anode”, in order to achieve additional measurements) for the unspecified electrodes of Hullinger et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide known conventional electrodes (e.g., comprising details such as the set of collecting electrodes are a set of dual readout resistive electrodes or a set of single readout metal collecting electrodes) as the unspecified electrodes of Hullinger et al.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hullinger et al. (US 2010/0314706) in view of Morichi et al. (US 2011/0012216).
In regard to claim 12, Hullinger et al. disclose a method of large-area semiconductor drift detector operation comprising:
(a) receiving at least one of face-on or edge-on illumination (e.g., see “… substrate 12 … entrance window layer, or bottom surface, faces incoming x-rays…” in Fig. 9 and paragraph 24); and
(b) directing, via a set of drift microstrips, electron and hole charges towards a collecting electrode (e.g., “… silicon drift detector, hereinafter SDD … as discussed above regarding SDD 80, electron drift speed towards the anode 25 may be improved by creating the widest ring at the outer perimeter 12c and using gradually decreasing ring widths towards the center …” in paragraphs 4 and 34),
wherein the set of drift microstrips and the set of collecting electrodes are in different planes with respect to each other (e.g., see “… anode 25 … insulating layer 98, such as an oxide layer. Each field plate ring 94a-d can be individually biased V1-4 …” in Fig. 9 and paragraphs 25 and 32).
The method of Hullinger et al. lacks determining a position of impingement of illumination against the drift detector and an explicit description of details of the “… anode …” such as an additional collecting electrode. However, “… anode …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… each anode (502) can be connected (506) to a single electronics channel (504) as shown. This array of linear SDDs (500) can be used for performing one-dimensional particle localization by weighting the responses from all the ASICS as shown on FIG. 6. A 2D retracing can be done by using additional localization information from the resistive anodes and collecting FETs at the end of each anode (504): the weighting given on each FET will give the Y localization information in the Y direction …” in paragraph 79 of Morichi et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted known conventional electrodes (e.g., comprising details such as “each anode (502) can be connected (506) to a single electronics channel (504)”, in order to achieve “one-dimensional particle localization by weighting the responses”) for the unspecified electrodes of Hullinger et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide known conventional electrodes (e.g., comprising details such as a set of collecting electrodes) as the unspecified electrodes of Hullinger et al. and to determine a position of impingement of illumination against the drift detector, in order to achieve “one-dimensional particle localization by weighting the responses”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 Porta can be reached on (571)272-2444. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID P PORTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884