DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to communication filed 3/17/2026.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. An energy conversion device that converts ultraviolet radiation into useable energy as an electrical generator as described by Sung is definitionally a detector as radiation is detected by the photocathode and converted into an electrical signal used as power. The fact that this signal is used as a power source does not change the fact that it is a signal detecting ultraviolet radiation. Additionally, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As the broadest reasonable interpretation of a detector has no structural difference with a generator this argument is not persuasive.
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 1-8, 10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sung (US 2007/0126312).
Regarding claim 1, Sung (see, e.g., FIG. 11) discloses an ultraviolet (UV) sensitive (para [0068]) detector (para [0075]: “energy conversion device”) for measuring UV radiation (Note: the phrase “for measuring UV radiation” is reciting intended use which has no structural impact on the device and is therefore not further limiting, see also MPEP 2111.02(II)), wherein the detector comprises a UV photocathode (para [0071]) comprising:
a support structure (14, 16 and para [0072]), and
an amorphous diamond-like carbon coating (20 and para [0076]) on the support structure.
Regarding claim 2, Sung teaches the UV sensitive detector according to claim 1, wherein:
the amorphous diamond-like carbon coating comprises a pulsed arc-discharge deposited coating (para [0103]: "cathodic arc process").
Regarding claim 3, Sung teaches the UV sensitive detector according to claim 1, wherein:
the amorphous diamond-like carbon coating is doped with nitrogen or hydrogen (para [0042]).
Regarding claim 4, Sung teaches the UV sensitive detector according to claim 1, wherein:
the thickness of the amorphous diamond-like carbon coating is between 100 to 300 nanometers (para [0012]).
Regarding claim 5 Sung teaches the UV sensitive detector according to claim 1, wherein:
the support structure is made of metal or silicon (para [0074]).
Regarding claim 6 Sung teaches the UV sensitive detector according to claim 1, wherein:
the support structure is an inner surface (see Annotated Figure 11 below) of a detector (para. [0075]: "energy conversion device") comprising the UV sensitive photocathode or a separate support structure which is mountable to a detector comprising the UV sensitive photocathode.
PNG
media_image1.png
715
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7 Sung (see, e.g., FIG. 11) discloses a method for producing an ultraviolet (UV) sensitive photocathode of a UV sensitive detector, the method comprising:
preparing a support structure (14, 16 and para [0072]), and
producing an amorphous diamond-like carbon coating on the support structure (20 and para [0076]).
Regarding claim 8 Sung teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein:
the amorphous diamond-like carbon coating is produced with a pulsed arc-discharge deposition process (para [0103]: "cathodic arc process").
Regarding claim 10 Sung teaches the method according to claim 7, further comprising:
doping the amorphous diamond-like carbon coating with nitrogen, hydrogen, or deuterium (para [0042]).
Regarding claim 13 Sung teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein:
a thickness of the amorphous diamond-like carbon coating is between 100 to 300 nanometers (para [0012]).
Regarding claim 14 Sung teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein:
the support structure is made of metal or silicon (para [0074]).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung (US 2007/0126312) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Santhrum et al. (US 5458754).
Regarding claim 9 Sung teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the pulsed arc-discharge deposition process comprises:
producing a pulsed carbon plasma (para [0103]: "vaporized carbon atoms" and "become ionized"), using a high voltage discharge arc (para [0103]), and
conveying the produced carbon plasma to the support structure (para [0103]: "drive the carbon atoms") to produce the amorphous coating on the support structure (para [0103]: "form a carbonaceous material").
Sung fails to expressly teach: a vacuum arc-discharge.
However Santhrum et al. (see, e.g., FIG. 1) teaches a vacuum arc-discharge (11a, 12 and col 6 lines 27-31).
In view of Santhrum 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 incorporate a vacuum arc-discharge as described by Santhrum et al. to the method of forming a pulsed carbon plasma as described by Sung in order to control the amount of hydrogen present in the amorphous diamond-like coating (col 3 lines 53-56).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung (US 2007/0126312) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Santhrum et al. (US 5458754).
Regarding claim 11 Sung fails to teach the method according to claim 7, wherein:
the support structure is at a temperature between 20 to 250 °C during the producing of the amorphous diamond-like carbon coating.
However Santhrum et al. teaches that the support structure is at a temperature between 20 to 250 °C during the producing of the amorphous diamond-like carbon coating (col 16 lines 33-36: "keeping constant 150 °C").
In view of Santhrum 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 incorporate the support structure being kept at 150 °C as described by Santhrum et al. to the method of producing an amorphous diamond-like carbon coating on the support structure as described by Sung in order to control the formation of amorphous carbon rather than graphite on the support structure (para [0104]).
Regarding claim 12 Sung fails to teach the method according to claim 7, wherein:
the preparing the support structure comprises polishing the support structure.
However Santhrum et al. teaches: wherein the preparing the support structure comprises polishing the support structure (col 15 lines 49-56).
In view of Santhrum 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 incorporate the polishing the support structure as described by Santhrum et al. to the method of preparing a support structure as described by Sung in order to improve the adhesion of the coating to the support structure (col 15 lines 57-64).
Conclusion
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 AIDAN D BANKLER whose telephone number is (571)272-0883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571)272-5055. 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.
/AIDAN D BANKLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights