DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-9, filed 2/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shirley et al (“High-Efficiency X-ray Sensing with Recyclable Perovskite−Graphene Heterostructured Transistors”, White et al (US 2018/0145204 A) and Liu et al (US 2021/0171828 A1).
Response to Amendment
The amendment submitted 2/13/2026 has been accepted and entered. No claims are amended. No claims are cancelled. New claims 21-22 are added. Thus, claims 1-22 are examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-12, 14-18, 20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shirley et al (“High-Efficiency X-ray Sensing with Recyclable Perovskite−Graphene Heterostructured Transistors”.
Regarding claim 1, Shirley et al discloses a method of detecting high energy radiation, comprising: (a) exposing a detector (CsPbBr3) to a source of high energy radiation (page 3165, col. 1, paragraph 2), the detector comprising a scintillator layer (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2) comprising a metal halide perovskite (See Abstract); a charge generation layer comprising semiconductor quantum dots (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2), the charge generation layer positioned between the scintillator layer and a charge transport layer comprising graphene (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2), the charge generation layer forming an interface with the charge transport layer (page 3162, col. 2, paragraph 2); the charge transport layer comprising graphene; and electrodes in electrical communication with the charge transport layer; and (b) collecting carriers from the charge transport layer, the carriers generated in the charge generation layer via absorption of the high energy radiation in the scintillator layer (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 2, Shirley et al discloses wherein the high energy radiation has an energy per photon or energy per particle of at least 1 keV (20 keV) (page 3162, col. 1, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Shirley et al discloses wherein the high energy radiation is X-ray radiation (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Shirley et al discloses wherein the metal halide perovskite is in a form of nanocrystal (nanostructured perovskite) (page 3162, col. 1, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Shirley et al discloses wherein the scintillator layer has a thickness of no more than 500 nm (10-20 mm) (page 3164, col. 1, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Shirley et al discloses wherein the metal halide perovskite has Formula IA, APbX3, wherein A is selected from alkali metals and X is selected from halogens (i.e. MAPbX3) (page 3163, col. 1, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, Shirley et al discloses wherein the metal halide perovskite has Formula 1B, CsPbX3 (i.e. CsPbBr3) (page 3165, col. 1, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Shirley et al discloses wherein the electrodes are positioned such that an electric field generated by a bias voltage applied to the electrodes is oriented parallel to planes defined by the scintillator layer, the charge generation layer, and the charge transport layer (page 1362, col 2, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, Shirley et al discloses wherein the electrodes are positioned on the same surface of the charge transport layer (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 12, Shirley et al discloses wherein the scintillator layer consists of the metal halide perovskite (See Abstract and page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2), the charge generation layer consists of the semiconductor quantum dots (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2), and the charge transport layer consists of the graphene (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 14, Shirley et al discloses wherein the detector comprises one or more active regions, each active region consisting of the scintillator layer (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2), the charge generation layer (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2), the charge transport layer (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2), the electrodes (page 1362, col. 2, second paragraph), and optionally, one or more layers of a charge blocking material (page 3162, col. 2, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 15, Shirley et al discloses wherein the detector is characterize by a sensitivity to X-ray radiation of at least
PNG
media_image1.png
32
162
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(i.e.
PNG
media_image2.png
34
172
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) (page 3163, col. 1, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 16, Shirley et al discloses a high energy radiation detector (CsPbBr3), comprising: a scintillator layer (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2) comprising a metal halide perovskite (See Abstract); a charge generation layer comprising semiconductor quantum dots (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2), the charge generation layer positioned between the scintillator layer and a charge transport layer comprising graphene (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2), the charge generation layer forming an interface with the charge transport layer; the charge transport layer comprising graphene; and electrodes in electrical communication with the charge transport layer (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 17, Shirley et al discloses wherein the electrodes are positioned such that an electric field generated by a bias voltage applied to the electrodes is oriented parallel to planes defined by the scintillator layer, the charge generation layer, and the charge transport layer (page 1362, col 2, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 18, Shirley et al discloses wherein the scintillator layer consists of the metal halide perovskite (See Abstract and page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2), the charge generation layer consists of the semiconductor quantum dots (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2), and the charge transport layer consists of the graphene (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 20, Shirley et al discloses wherein the detector comprises one or more active regions, each active region consisting of the scintillator layer (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2), the charge generation layer (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2), the charge transport layer (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2), the electrodes (page 1362, col. 2, second paragraph), and optionally, one or more layers of a charge blocking material (page 3162, col. 2, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 22, Shirley et al discloses wherein the detector is characterize by a sensitivity to X-ray radiation of at least
PNG
media_image1.png
32
162
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(i.e.
PNG
media_image2.png
34
172
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) (page 3163, col. 1, second paragraph).
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.
Claim(s) 8-9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirley et al (“High-Efficiency X-ray Sensing with Recyclable Perovskite−Graphene Heterostructured Transistors” in view of White et al (US 2018/0145204 A).
Regarding claim 8, Shirley et al discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1, as describes supra however, Shirley et al is silent with regards to the quantum dots composed of PbS. White et al discloses a device for direct x-ray detection comprising: quantum dot may comprise a plurality of quantum dots formed from PbS (paragraph [0019]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Shirely et al with the teaching of White et al, so as to enable a high sensitivity radiation detector.
Regarding claim 9, Shirley et al discloses further comprising a layer of charge blocking material (graphene) between scintillator layer and charge transport layer (page 3162, col. 2, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 19, Shirley et al discloses wherein the metal halide perovskite has Formula 1B, CsPbX3 (i.e. CsPbBr3) (page 3165, col. 1, second paragraph). Shirley et al is silent with regards to the quantum dots composed of PbS. White et al discloses a device for direct x-ray detection comprising: quantum dot may comprise a plurality of quantum dots formed from PbS (paragraph [0019]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Shirely et al with the teaching of White et al, so as to enable a high sensitivity radiation detector.
Claim(s) 13, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirley et al (“High-Efficiency X-ray Sensing with Recyclable Perovskite−Graphene Heterostructured Transistors” in view of White et al (US 2018/0145204 A) and Liu et al (US 2021/0171828 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Shirley et al discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as describes supra however, Shirley et al is silent with regards to the quantum dots composed of PbS and the metal halide perovskite is CsPbCl3. White et al discloses a device for direct x-ray detection comprising: quantum dot may comprise a plurality of quantum dots formed from PbS (paragraph [0019]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Shirely et al with the teaching of White et al, so as to enable a high sensitivity radiation detector. Liu et al discloses herein the metal halide perovskite is CsPbzCl3 in a form of nanocrystals (paragraph [0017]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Shirley et al with the teaching of Liu et al so as to enable a nanocrystal scintillator capable of generating ionizing radiation excited emissions (paragraph [00004]).
Regarding claim 21, Shirley et al discloses wherein the detector comprises one or more active regions, each active region consisting of the scintillator layer (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2), the charge generation layer (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2), the charge transport layer (page 3162, col. 1, paragraph 2), the electrodes (page 1362, col. 2, second paragraph), and optionally, one or more layers of a charge blocking material (page 3162, col. 2, second paragraph). Shirley et al is silent with regards to the quantum dots composed of PbS and the metal halide perovskite is CsPbCl3. White et al discloses a device for direct x-ray detection comprising: quantum dot may comprise a plurality of quantum dots formed from PbS (paragraph [0019]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Shirely et al with the teaching of White et al, so as to enable a high sensitivity radiation detector. Liu et al discloses herein the metal halide perovskite is CsPbzCl3 in a form of nanocrystals (paragraph [0017]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Shirley et al with the teaching of Liu et al so as to enable a nanocrystal scintillator capable of generating ionizing radiation excited emissions (paragraph [00004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANI POLYZOS BOOSALIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2447. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 PM.
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 Uzma.Alam@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/F.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884