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 – 19 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.
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, 8-12, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al. (JP2009169098 A1; pub. Jul. 30, 2009).
Regarding claim 1, Hattori et al. disclose in a first method: a method of fabricating a multi-layer X-ray grating comprising:
applying a seed layer on a radiation transparent substrate (para. [0063]).
In the first method Hattori et al. are silent about:
fabricating at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer atop the seed layer, the at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer including gaps; and
fabricating at least one X-ray absorbing layer atop the seed layer into the gaps of the at least one non-X-ray absorbing layer.
In a further method Hattori et al. disclose:
fabricating at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer atop the seed layer, the at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer including gaps (para. [0064]-[0071]); and
fabricating at least one X-ray absorbing layer atop the seed layer into the gaps of the at least one non-X-ray absorbing layer (para. [0078]) motivated by the benefits for x-ray gratings at a reduced cost (Hattori et al. para. [0012]).
In light of the benefits for x-rays gratings at a reduced cost as taught by Hattori 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 combine the two methods of Hattori et al.
Regarding claim 8, Hattori et al. disclose in a first embodiment: a substrate (para. [0063]);
a seed layer on top of the substrate (para. [0063]).
In the first embodiment Hattori et al. are silent about:
at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer atop the seed layer, the at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer including gaps; and at least one X-ray absorbing layer atop the seed layer, the at least one X-ray absorbing layer located within the gaps of the at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer.
In a further embodiment Hattori et al. disclose:
at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer atop the seed layer, the at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer including gaps (para. [0064]-[0071]); and at least one X-ray absorbing layer atop the seed layer, the at least one X-ray absorbing layer located within the gaps of the at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer (para. [0078]) motivated by the benefits for x-ray gratings at a reduced cost (Hattori et al. para. [0012]).
In light of the benefits for x-rays gratings at a reduced cost as taught by Hattori 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 combine the two embodiments of Hattori et al.
Regarding claim 9, Hattori et al. disclose: the seed layer is at least one of opaque or electrically conductive (para. [0063]).
Regarding claim 10, Hattori et al. disclose: the at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer is a photo-sensitive layer (para. [0078]).
Regarding claim 11, Hattori et al. disclose: the at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer is a layer of negative photoresist, a layer of positive photoresist, a layer of an epoxy-based polymer, a layer of a polymer, or a layer of photosensitive material (para. [0064]).
Regarding claim 12, Hattori et al. disclose: the at least one X-ray absorbing layer is made from gold, platinum, nickel, lead, selenium, bismuth, tungsten, or indium (para. [0067]-[0068]).
Regarding claim 15, Hattori et al. disclose in a first embodiment: A phase contrast imaging system comprising: an X-ray source; an X-ray detector (para. [0050]); wherein the X-ray grating is located between the X-ray source and the X-ray detector; and wherein an object of interest is located between the X-ray source and the X-ray detector (para. [0050])and at least one multi-layer high-aspect ratio X-ray grating including: a substrate (para. [0063]); a seed layer on top of the substrate (para. [0063])1
In the first embodiment Hattori et al. are silent about:
at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer atop the seed layer, the at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer including gaps; and at least one X-ray absorbing layer atop the seed layer, the at least one X-ray absorbing layer located within the gaps of the at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer.
In a further embodiment Hattori et al. disclose: at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer atop the seed layer, the at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer including gaps (para. [0064]-[0071]); and at least one X-ray absorbing layer atop the seed layer, the at least one X-ray absorbing layer located within the gaps of the at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer (para. [0078]) motivated by the benefits for x-ray gratings at a reduced cost (Hattori et al. para. [0012]).
In light of the benefits for x-rays gratings at a reduced cost as taught by Hattori 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 combine the two embodiments of Hattori et al.
Regarding claim 16, Hattori et al. disclose: a first distance between the X-ray source and the object of interest and a second distance between the object of interest and the X-ray detector are selected based on X-ray source, X-ray detector and X-ray grating specifications (the claim does not contain any additional structure that further limits claim 15, the claim is therefore rejected on the same basis).
Regarding claim 17, Hattori et al. disclose: the at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer is a photosensitive layer (para. [0078]).
Regarding claim 18, Hattori et al. disclose: the at least one X-ray absorbing layer is made from gold, platinum, nickel, lead, selenium, bismuth, tungsten, or indium (para. [0067]-[0068]).
Claims 2-7, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al. (JP2009169098 A1; pub. Jul. 30, 2009) in view of Norman et al. “Self-aligned reduction lithography using backside exposure through embedded masks”, IOP Publishing, J. Micromech. Microeng. 21, 2011, pg. 1 – 5.
Regarding claim 2, Hattori et al. are silent about: fabricating the at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer comprises exposing the grating to backside radiation exposure.
In a similar field of endeavor Norman et al. disclose: fabricating the at least one patterned non-X-ray absorbing layer comprises exposing the grating to backside radiation exposure (pg.1 abstract) motivated by the benefits for improved structures (Norman et al. pg.1 1st last 2 lines).
In light of the benefits for improved structures as taught by Norman 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 method of Hattori et al. with the teachings of Norman et al.
Regarding claim 3, Hattori et al. are silent about: fabricating the at least one X-ray absorbing layer comprises exposing the grating to backside radiation exposure.
In a similar field of endeavor Norman et al. disclose: fabricating the at least one X-ray absorbing layer comprises exposing the grating to backside radiation exposure (pg.1 abstract) motivated by the benefits for improved structures (Norman et al. pg.1 1st last 2 lines).
In light of the benefits for improved structures as taught by Norman 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 method of Hattori et al. with the teachings of Norman et al.
Regarding claim 4, Norman et al. disclose: exposing the grating to backside radiation exposure enables self-alignment of the at least one patterned X-ray absorbing layer (pg.1 abstract) motivated by the benefits for improved structures (Norman et al. pg.1 1st last 2 lines).
Regarding claim 5, Norman et al. disclose: exposing the grating to backside radiation exposure enables self-alignment of the at least one X-ray absorbing layer (pg.1 abstract) motivated by the benefits for improved structures (Norman et al. pg.1 1st last 2 lines).
Regarding claim 6, Norman et al. disclose: the backside radiation exposure is performed via ultraviolet (UV) exposure, extreme UV (EUV) exposure, deep DUV (DUV) exposure, near infrared (NIR) exposure, infra-red (IR) exposure or X-ray lithography (pg.2 figure 1) motivated by the benefits for improved structures (Norman et al. pg.1 1st last 2 lines).
Regarding claim 7, Norman et al. disclose: the backside radiation exposure is performed via ultraviolet (UV) exposure, extreme UV (EUV) exposure, deep DUV (DUV) exposure, near infrared (NIR) exposure, infra-red (IR) exposure or X-ray lithography (pg.2 figure 1) motivated by the benefits for improved structures (Norman et al. pg.1 1st last 2 lines).
Regarding claim 19, Hattori et al. are silent about: the high-aspect ratio X-ray grating is fabricated using at least one of a backside exposure process or a self-alignment process.
In a similar field of endeavor Norman et al. disclose: the high-aspect ratio X-ray grating is fabricated using at least one of a backside exposure process or a self-alignment process (pg.1 abstract) motivated by the benefits for improved structures (Norman et al. pg.1 1st last 2 lines).
In light of the benefits for improved structures as taught by Norman 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 Hattori et al. with the teachings of Norman et al.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al. (JP2009169098 A1; pub. Jul. 30, 2009) in view of Yan et al. (CN109827981A; pub. May 31, 2019).
Regarding claim 13, Hattori et al. are silent about: an adhesion layer atop the seed layer.
In a similar field of endeavor Yan et al. disclose: an adhesion layer atop the seed layer (para. [0019]) motivated by the benefits for x-ray gratings that can detect ultrafast x-rays (Yan et al. para. [0002]).
In light of the benefits for x-ray gratings that can detect ultrafast x-rays as taught by Yan 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 Hattori et al. with the teachings of Yan et al.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al. (JP2009169098 A1; pub. Jul. 30, 2009) in view of Yan et al. (CN109827981A; pub. May 31, 2019) and further in view of Reyes-Hernandez et al. (US 2017/0097319 A1; pub. Apr. 6, 2017).
Regarding claim 14, the combined references are silent about: the adhesion layer is MPTS.
In a similar field of endeavor Reyes-Hernandez et al. disclose: the adhesion layer is MPTS (para. [0179]) motivated by the benefits for strong adhesion.
In light of the benefits for strong adhesion, 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 Hattori et al. and Yan et al. with the teachings of Reyes-Hernandez et al.
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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884