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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 11 April 2024 has been accepted and entered.
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.
Claim(s) 19-27, 31, 35, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al. (US 2015/0235726 A1, cited by Applicant), in view of Safai (US 2013/0315376 A1, cited by Applicant).
With respect to claim 19, Ohashi discloses a detector device of radiation emitted by a sample irradiated with an excitation beam (par. [0045]), the detector device comprising: a hollow guide element having an inlet opening and an outlet opening, the hollow guide element able to guide the excitation beam along a propagation axis oriented from the inlet opening to the outlet opening (from irradiation unit 41, vertically downwards through through-hole, 13, Fig. 1; par. [0046]), a plurality of elements sensitive to radiation, which are arranged around the hollow guide element (X-ray detector, 1, including a plurality of X-ray detection elements, 12; par. [0046]).
Ohashi does not specify that the active surface of the sensitive elements is tilted with respect to a plane orthogonal to the axis of propagation of the excitation beam and which faces the outlet opening of the hollow guide element. However, Safai discloses a detection system in which multiple detection elements may be tilted relative to a plane orthogonal to the axis of propagation of an excitation beam (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to include tilted detector surfaces in order to more effectively collect reflected/backscattered radiation from an object being inspected, when compared to a flat detection surface (See Safai, par. [0008]).
With respect to claim 20, Ohashi discloses a support structure for the radiation-sensitive elements, the support structure being provided with an opening for the passage of the hollow guide element (par. [0049], includes ribs to support detection elements and through-hole).
With respect to claim 21, Ohashi discloses a plate (X-ray transmissive film, 111), in which the passage opening of the hollow guide element is formed (middle of 11, Fig. 2), and a plurality of blocks, rising from the plate, for connecting the sensitive elements to the plate (linear ribs, 112).
With respect to claims 22 and 23, Safai, as applied in combination above, discloses a support structure which may be curved into multiple shapes, including a hemispherical shape (Fig. 3-5).
With respect to claim 24, Ohashi discloses radiation-sensitive elements arranged symmetrically around the hollow guide element (as shown in Fig. 2, wherein hollow guide element is in the middle of 11).
With respect to claim 25, Ohashi does not specify that the radiation-sensitive elements are arranged asymmetrically around the hollow guide element. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to arrange the radiation-sensitive elements as necessary, depending on the geometry of the object being inspected (see Safai, par. [0060]).
With respect to claim 26, Ohashi discloses flat detector elements (Fig. 1, 12).
With respect to claim 27, the cited prior art does not specify curved radiation-sensitive elements. However, absent some degree of criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a desired shape for the detection elements, depending on the application and/or sample being inspected. It has been held that more than mere change of form or rearrangement of parts is necessary for patentability. Span-Deck Inc. v. Fab-Con, Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPQ 835.
With respect to claim 31, Ohashi discloses a signal processing unit connected to the radiation-sensitive elements (par. [0048]). Ohashi discloses the use of a personal computer, thus implicitly disclosing a printed circuit board (par. [0048], control device).
With respect to claims 35 and 36, Ohashi discloses a system including the detector device as applied to claim 19 above and a source of an excitation beam (electron gun, 41 for irradiating a sample with an electron beam).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi and Safai, in further view of Sato et al. (US 2017/0160213 A1).
With respect to claim 32, Ohashi does not specify the claimed shielding. However, Sato discloses an X-ray inspection apparatus (abstract) comprising shielding for preventing excitation light from impinging on the detectors (par. [0077]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include shielding in order to prevent extraneous or scattered excitation light from reaching the radiation sensitive elements, in order to provide more precise measurements.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi and Safai, in further view of Price et al. (US 2003/0048877 A1).
With respect to claim 33, Ohashi does not specify the use of a thermoelectric cooling device. However, Price discloses an x-ray analysis device (abstract) comprising a thermoelectric cooler (par. [0034]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to employ the use of a thermoelectric cooler in order to improve the resolution and performance of the detector elements (See Price, par. [0034]).
Claim Objections
Claim 30 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 30 includes an unmatched open parenthesis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-30 and 34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and/or to overcome any relevant objections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 28 and 29, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed chip comprising a monolithic array composed of a single sensitive unit or multiple sensitive units integrated on the same monolithic chip, as claimed.
With respect to claims 30 and 34, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed internally hollow box comprising a base for supporting the sensitive elements, closed by a lid, a respective radiolucent window formed in the base and in the lid, and each window is arranged in correspondence with the sensitive elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R GAWORECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-6 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, 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.
/MARK R GAWORECKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 17 June 2026
Prosecution Insights