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 .
Introduction
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification as originally filed fails to recognize the concept that the substrate of the claimed device may be sapphire or fused silica, and the resultant device may be “constructed and arranged to serve as a Cherenkov radiator or scintillator.” The specification as originally filed only describes bismuth germanate, barium fluoride and lead tungstate in this context.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 18 defines the substrate as “a fused silica window layer” which is not one of the enumerated substrates of claim 17, and thus fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ota et al. ( ).
Ota discloses a gamma ray detector (which employs photodetection). See the title and paragraph [0023]. The detector includes a lead tungstate entrance window 11 (corresponding to the claimed crystalline substrate), intermediate layer 12 (i.e., ion barrier layer), and a photoelectric surface 13 (i.e,. functional layer). See Figure 3 and paragraphs [0018]-[0022].
The intermediate layer 13 prevents the migration of alkali ions into the entrance window 11 See paragraph [0029].
The entrance window functions as a Cherenkov radiator. See paragraph [0017].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1-7 and 20-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mane et al. (US 2019/0066961 A1) in view of Si et al. (CN 106298427 A).
As to claims 1 and 5-7, Mane et al. discloses an enhanced electron amplifier structure. See the title. The structure includes a glass substrate (101) having channels (100) therethrough. See Figures 2A-2D and paragraphs [0032]. The glass substrate includes sodium that may diffuse into the resistive coating (104) or emissive coating (108) (i.e., secondary-electron emission layer/functional layer), thereby degrading the properties of the microchannel plates. See paragraph [0035]. The pores are coated with an ion diffusion barrier (102) such as Al2O3 (i.e., a metal oxide) that prevents the alkali metal from migrating from the substrate. Id.
The functional layer is preferably MgO which may be formed by ALD.
Mane et al. fails to disclose the raw materials employed in making the MgO via ALD. Thus, Mane et al. fails to disclose forming the MgO from “precursors that are exclusively non-fluorine based.”
Si et al. teaches a method of making a MgO film in a microchannel plate using ALD. See the title, abstract and paragraph [0023] of the translation. The MgO film is formed from MgCP2 and H2O (MgCP2 is magnesium dicyclopentadienyl). Id. These reactants don’t include any fluorine.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have formed the MgO layer of Mane et al. with the reactants of Si et al. which are free of fluorine. The rationale for doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143 I.A.
As to claim 2, Mane et al. disclose the ionic species is sodium, an alkali metal. See paragraph [0035].
As to claim 3, Mane et al. discloses microchannel plates are formed of various glasses including lead glass (i.e., PbO glass). See paragraph [0004]. Lead glasses are known to the ordinary skilled artisan to contain alkali and alkaline earth metals as network modifiers.
As to claim 4, Mane et al. disclose the glass substrate is a borosilicate glass. See paragraph [0034].
As to claim 5, Mane et al. discloses the metal oxide barrier layer may be Al2O3. See paragraph [0035].
Claims 20-22 define the product by the method of which it is made (i.e., annealing). For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure of a formed functional layer. The reference suggests such a product by teaching MgO as a formed product.
As to claims 23-25 and 29, Mane et al. teaches the film structure of: Al2O3 ion barrier layer/Al2O3 resistive layer / MgO emissivity layer. See paragraph [0035]. The second Al2O3 film is a resistive layer (i..e, second functional layer) and may be formed by ALD. See paragraph [0032]. Mane et al. fails to teach the raw materials employed to form the ALD Al2O3 layers. Si et al. teaches ALD Al2O3 may be formed by Al(CH3)3 and H2O. See paragraph [0020] of the translation of Si et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have formed the Al2O3 layer of Mane et al. with the reactants of Si et al. which are free of fluorine. The rationale for doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143 I.A.
Further as to claim 29 and the annealing limitation, the annealing limitation is a process limitation in a product claim (i.e., a product-by-process limitation). For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure of a formed functional layer. The reference suggests such a product by teaching Al2O/MgO formed layers.
As to claims 26 and 27, Mane teaches the ion diffusion layer may be formed of ZrO2 or HfO2. See paragraph [0033].
As to claim 28, Mane teaches the ion diffusion layer may be a metal oxide. See paragraph [0033]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed any metal oxide including yttrium oxide.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784