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 status: amended claims: 1, 7, 12, 14; new claims: 17-22; the rest is unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new reference is currently is being used in the present rejection.
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.
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 1-4, 7-9, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niederloehner et al. (US 2016/0025869 A1; pub. Jan. 28, 2016) in view of Lang et al. (US 2026/0143867 A1; pub. May 21, 2026).
Regarding claim 1, Niederloehner et al. disclose: A detection system, comprising: a semiconductor layer for converting photons or particles into charge carriers (fig.1 item 14, para. [0038]-[0039])); and a light emitting layer for generating light from the charge carriers (fig.1 item 12, para. [0038]-[0039])).
Niederloehner et al. are silent about: charge carriers generated in the semiconductor layer are transported to the light emitting layer and the light emitting layer generates the light by radiative recombination of the transported charge carriers.
In a similar field of endeavor Lang et al. disclose: charge carriers generated in the semiconductor layer are transported to the light emitting layer and the light emitting layer generates the light by radiative recombination of the transported charge carriers (para. [0107]) motivated by the benefits for increased light emission.
In light of the benefits for increased light emission, 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 Niederloehner et al. with the teachings Lang et al.
Regarding claim 2, Niederloehner et al. disclose: the semiconductor layer coverts x-rays into the charge carriers (para. [0038]-[0039])).
Regarding claim 3, Niederloehner et al. disclose: the semiconductor layer is amorphous selenium (a-Se), GaAs, CdZnTe, CdTe, or perovskite crystal (ABX3) (para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 4, Niederloehner et al. disclose: the light emitting layer is an organic light emitting diode (OLED), GaAs, AlGaAs, InGaAs, CdTe or CdZnTe (para. [0025]).
Regarding claim 7, Niederloehner et al. and Lang et al. disclose: A detection method, comprising: converting photons or particles into charge carriers in a semiconductor layer; and generating light from the charge carriers in a light emitting layer by radiative recombination of the charge carriers (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Niederloehner et al. disclose: the semiconductor layer coverts x-rays into the charge carriers (para. [0039]).
Regarding claim 9, Niederloehner et al. disclose: the semiconductor layer is amorphous selenium (a-Se), GaAs, CdZnTe, CdTe, or perovskite crystal (ABX3) (para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 17, Niederloehner et al. disclose: the light emitting layer is disposed on a side of the semiconductor layer opposite a photon- or particle-receiving side of the semiconductor layer (para. [0040] teaches the luminous film 14 (OLED film (para. [0025]) covers the surface of the semiconductor layer 12).
Regarding claim 19, Niederloehner et al. and Lang et al. disclose: the light emitting layer includes an emission zone having a thickness comparable to or less than a depth-of-field of a high numerical aperture microscope objective used to image the generated light (the claim does not recite any additional structure that further limits claim 1, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Claims 5-6, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niederloehner et al. (US 2016/0025869 A1; pub. Jan. 28, 2016) n view of Lang et al. (US 2026/0143867 A1; pub. May 21, 2026) and further in view of Schwarzman et al. (US 2014/0070109 A1; pub. Mar. 13, 2014).
Regarding claim 5, the combined references are silent about: The detection system of claim 1 further comprising layers or structures that improve light outcoupling towards one or more detectors.
In a similar field of endeavor Schwarzman et al. disclose: The detection system of claim 1 further comprising layers or structures that improve light outcoupling towards one or more detectors (para. [0021], [0037]) motivated by the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current (Schwarzman et al. para. [0022]).
In light of the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current as taught Schwarzman 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 Niederloehner et al. and Lang et al. with the teachings Schwarzman et al.
Regarding claim 6, Schwarzman et al. disclose: the layers or structures include a reflective layer, a Bragg grating, a surface structure, and/or microlens over the semiconductor layer (para. [0021], [0037]) motivated by the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current (Schwarzman et al. para. [0022]).
In light of the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current as taught Schwarzman 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 Niederloehner et al. and Lang et al. with the teachings Schwarzman et al. to have a reflective layer, a Bragg grating, a surface structure, and/or microlens between the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer.
Regarding claim 10, the combined references are silent about: improving light outcoupling towards one or more detectors.
In a similar field of endeavor Schwarzman et al. disclose: improving light outcoupling towards one or more detectors (para. [0021], [0037]) motivated by the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current (Schwarzman et al. para. [0022]).
In light of the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current as taught Schwarzman 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 Niederloehner et al. and Lang et al. with the teachings Schwarzman et al.
Regarding claim 11, Schwarzman et al. disclose: improving the light outcoupling with a reflective layer, a Bragg grating, a surface structure, and/or microlens (para. [0021], [0037]) motivated by the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current (Schwarzman et al. para. [0022]).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjostrom et al. (US 2015/0230767 A1; pub. Aug. 20, 2015) in view of Niederloehner et al. (US 2016/0025869 A1; pub. Jan. 28, 2016) and further in view of Lang et al. (US 2026/0143867 A1; pub. May 21, 2026).
Regarding claim 12, Sjostrom et al. disclose: An x-ray microscopy system, comprising: an x-ray source (para. [0052]-[0053]) for generating an x-ray beam; an object holder (para. [0097]) for holding an object in the x-ray beam; and an x-ray detection system including a detector comprising a semiconductor layer for converting x-rays from the x-ray beam into charge carriers (para. [0037]) and a camera for detecting the light from the light emitting lay (para. [0052]-[0053]).
Sjostrom et al. are silent about: a light emitting layer for generating light from the charge carriers by radiative combination.
In a similar field of endeavor Niederloehner et al. disclose: a light emitting layer for generating light from the charge carriers (para. [0025]) motivated by the benefits for an improved X-ray radiation detector with simplified structure and/or an improved method for the measurement of X-ray radiation (Niederloehner et al. para. [0007]).
In light of the benefits for an improved X-ray radiation detector with simplified structure and/or an improved method for the measurement of X-ray radiation as taught Niederloehner 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 Sjostrom et al. with the teachings Niederloehner et al.
Niederloehner et al. are silent about: generating light from the charge carriers by radiative combination.
In a similar field of endeavor Lang et al. disclose: generating light from the charge carriers by radiative combination (para. [0107]) motivated by the benefits for increased light emission.
In light of the benefits for increased light emission, 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 Sjostrom et al. and Niederloehner et al. with the teachings Lang et al.
Regarding claim 13, Niederloehner et al. disclose: the semiconductor layer is amorphous selenium (a-Se), GaAs, CdZnTe, CdTe, or perovskite crystal (ABX3) (para. [0004]) motivated by the benefits for an improved X-ray radiation detector with simplified structure and/or an improved method for the measurement of X-ray radiation (Niederloehner et al. para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 14, Niederloehner et al. disclose: the light emitting layer is an organic light emitting diode (OLED), GaAs, AlGaAs, InGaAs, CdTe or CdZnTe (para. [0025]) motivated by the benefits for an improved X-ray radiation detector with simplified structure and/or an improved method for the measurement of X-ray radiation (Niederloehner et al. para. [0007]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjostrom et al. (US 2015/0230767 A1; pub. Aug. 20, 2015) in view of Niederloehner et al. (US 2016/0025869 A1; pub. Jan. 28, 2016) in view of Lang et al. (US 2026/0143867 A1; pub. May 21, 2026) and further in view Schwarzman et al. (US 2014/0070109 A1; pub. Mar. 13, 2014).
Regarding claim 15, the combined references are silent about: layers or structures that improve light outcoupling toward the camera.
In a similar field of endeavor Schwarzman et al. disclose: layers or structures that improve light outcoupling toward the camera (para. [0021], [0037]) motivated by the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current (Schwarzman et al. para. [0022]).
In light of the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current as taught Schwarzman 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 Sjostrom et al., Niederloehner et al. and Lang et al. with the teachings Schwarzman et al.
Regarding claim 16, Schwarzman et al. disclose: the layers or structures include a reflective layer, a Bragg grating, a surface structure, and/or microlens between the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer (para. [0021], [0037]) motivated by the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current (Schwarzman et al. para. [0022]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niederloehner et al. (US 2016/0025869 A1; pub. Jan. 28, 2016) in view of Lang et al. (US 2026/0143867 A1; pub. May 21, 2026) and further in view of Schwarzman et al. (US 2014/0070109 A1; pub. Mar. 13, 2014).
Regarding claim 18, Niederloehner et al. disclose: the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer are directly connected in a monolithic stack (para. [0040] teaches the luminous film 14 (OLED film (para. [0025]) covers the surface of the semiconductor layer 12), the semiconductor layer coverts x-rays into the charge carriers (para. [0039]).
The combined references are silent about: such that the transported charge carriers are injected across an interface between the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer.
In a similar field of endeavor Schwarzman et al. disclose: such that the transported charge carriers are injected across an interface between the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer (para. [0021], [0037]) motivated by the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current (Schwarzman et al. para. [0022]).
In light of the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current as taught Schwarzman 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 Niederloehner et al. and Lang et al. with the teachings Schwarzman et al.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niederloehner et al. (US 2016/0025869 A1; pub. Jan. 28, 2016) in view of Lang et al. (US 2026/0143867 A1; pub. May 21, 2026) and further in view of Frankel (US 6,096,496; pub. Aug. 1, 2000).
Regarding claim 20, the combined references are silent about: the light emitting layer comprises a semiconductor heterostructure including at least one quantum well active region between barrier layers to enhance radiative recombination at low injection levels.
In a similar field of endeavor Frankel discloses: the light emitting layer comprises a semiconductor heterostructure including at least one quantum well active region between barrier layers to enhance radiative recombination at low injection levels (col.21 L35-52) motivated by the benefits for enhanced light emission (Frankel col.21 L35-52).
In light of the benefits for enhanced light emission as taught Frankel, 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 Niederloehner et al. and Lang et al. with the teachings Frankel.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niederloehner et al. (US 2016/0025869 A1; pub. Jan. 28, 2016) n view of Lang et al. (US 2026/0143867 A1; pub. May 21, 2026) in view of Schwarzman et al. (US 2014/0070109 A1; pub. Mar. 13, 2014) and further in view of Kuo (US 2020/0227594 A1; pub. Jul. 16, 2020).
Regarding claim 21, the combined references are silent about: the reflective layer comprises a distributed Bragg reflector disposed between the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer to reflect light emitted toward the semiconductor layer back toward the optical side.
In a similar field of endeavor Kuo discloses: the reflective layer comprises a distributed Bragg reflector disposed between the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer to reflect light emitted toward the semiconductor layer back toward the optical side (para. [0033]) motivated by the benefits for enhancing the luminous efficiency (Kuo para. [0033]).
In light of the benefits for enhancing the luminous efficiency as taught by Kuo, 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 Niederloehner et al., Lang et al. and Schwarzman et al. with the teachings Kuo.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjostrom et al. (US 2015/0230767 A1; pub. Aug. 20, 2015) in view of Niederloehner et al. (US 2016/0025869 A1; pub. Jan. 28, 2016) in view of Lang et al. (US 2026/0143867 A1; pub. May 21, 2026) and further in view of Kleppe et al. (US 2021/0141205 A1; pub. May 13, 2021).
Regarding claim 22, the combined references are silent about: an optical microscope including an objective lens and a tube lens arranged to collect the light generated by the light emitting layer and image it onto the camera.
In a similar field of endeavor Kleppe et al. disclose: an optical microscope including an objective lens and a tube lens arranged to collect the light generated by the light emitting layer and image it onto the camera (para. [0028]) motivated by the benefits for improved detection accuracy.
In light of the benefits for improved detection accuracy, 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 Sjostrom et al., Niederloehner et al. and Lang et al. with the teachings Kleppe et al.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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 /UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights