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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 August 2026 has been entered.
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Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.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 Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 30, line 6, refers to “the ionic barrier layer;” however, it should refer “the ion barrier layer.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 7, 17-18 and 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 17 were amended to recite that the annealed metal oxide ion barrier layer has a ratio of “N g/cm3 as a bulk density, and M/N % as a percentage of bulk density in which M/N % is within a range of 94% to 100%.” The closest written description can be found in Table 1 of the provisional application (serial no. 63/525,389) which was incorporated into the instant application specification. This table lacks written description support for at least two reasons.
First, there is nothing in the specification, as originally filed, that suggests the concept that the ALD film density can be 100% of theoretical density. The specification does not discuss relative density in general terms, moreover, the highest relative density in Table 1 is 97%.
Second, Table 1 provides relative densities for the species Al2O3, TiO2, Y2O3, ZrO2, HfO2, La2O3 and Sc2O3. There is nothing in the specification to suggest the concept that the relative densities for these specific species are applicable to the entirety of the genus of metal oxide ALD layers.
Claims 7, 18, and 21-35 are rejected for incorporating the non-supported description of claims 1 and 17 by reference.
Further as to claim 18, the specification as originally filed fails to describe an article in which fused silica, sapphire or borosilicate serve as a Cherenkov radiator or a scintillator.
The ranges of film density for the species in claims 31 to 34 are not supported by the specification as originally filed. The ranges appear to be derived from Table 1 of the specification. The upper and lower limits are from the ALD film density and bulk density columns of Table 1 which are truncated to the first decimal point. There is nothing in the specification as originally filed that suggests the concept that a relative density between the achieved ALD film density and the theoretical bulk density is part of the disclosed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 17-18 and 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 17 includes the limitation, “the ion barrier layer includes thermally annealed metal oxide having M g/cm3 as an ALD film density.” The mention of an “ALD film density” implies that the metal oxide layer is formed by ALD, but the claim does not previously require an ALD ion barrier layer (only a functional layer formed by ALD). Therefore, the claim is indefinite as to whether it require the barrier layer to be formed by ALD.
Claim 7, 18, 21-35 are rejected for failing to correct the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 7, and 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mane et al. (US 2019/0066961 A1)(Mane) in view of Si et al. (CN 106298427 A)(Si) and Finley et al. US 5,830,252)(Finley).
As to claims 1, 7, 23-25, 29 and 30, Mane 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) which may be Al2O3, HfO2, MgO, TiO2, ZrO2 or Gd2O3 (i.e., metal oxides). See paragraph [0033].
Mane teaches an embodiment having the film structure of: Al2O3 ion barrier layer / Al2O3 resistive layer / MgO emissivity layer. See paragraph [0035]. The emissivity layer and the resistive layer (i.e., the functional layers) may be formed by ALD . See paragraph [0032]. Mane et al. fails to teach the raw materials employed in forming the ALD Al2O3 or MgO layers.
Si 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. Si et al. teaches ALD Al2O3 may be formed by Al(CH3)3 and H2O. See paragraph [0020] of the translation of Si. In each instance, the 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 Al2O3 and MgO layers of Mane with the reactants of Si 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.
Mane further differs from claim 1 by failing to disclose the relative density of the ion barrier layer.
Finley discloses a coated glass which includes an sodium (i.e., ion) barrier layer between the glass and a coating that is subject to degradation by sodium ions. See col. 2, lines 28-34. The barrier layer is ZrO2 or TiO2 having a relative density (i.e., M/N%) of greater than 95%. See col. 4, lines 49-65. The high density results in a more effective barrier against ion migration. See col. 4, lines 49-60.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have formed the ion barrier of Mane to have a relative density of greater than 95% because the resultant layer more effectively operates to prevent ion migration.
The combination of references fails to disclose the ion barrier layer is annealed, or the temperature of annealing as recited in claims 21-22. 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 ion barrier layer with a high density. The combination of references suggest such a product.
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.
As described above, the combination of references teach the structure recited in claim 30. It follows to one of ordinary skill in the art that the resultant article would have the property of “the resistive layer being constructed and arranged to enable current flow through the device in operation to replenish the secondary electron emissive layer while not generating a chemical potential that facilitates ionic species diffusion through the ion barrier layer.”
As to claims 31-34, as noted above, Mane teaches the barrier layer may be formed of HfO2, TiO2, ZrO2 and it would have further been obvious to have selected Y2O3 as a known metal oxide. Moreover, Finley discloses the relative densities should be at least 95%. Therefore, the claimed densities flow from the teachings of the prior art.
Claim 35 is 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) and Finley et al. US 5,830,252) (Finley) as applied to claims 1 and 30 above, and further in view of Qiu et al. (CN 112420477 A)(Qiu).
The combined teachings of Mane, Si and Finley render obvious claims 1 and 30 for the reasons recited above. Mane teaches microchannel plates (MCP) and further teaches the amplifying structure is useful in detectors such those that detect low levels of light. See paragraph [0004].
The combined teaches of the references fail to disclose the MCPs are useful in a night vision device.
Qiu teaches MCPs are useful in night vision devices. See the first paragraph of the background section.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have incorporated the MCP structure suggested by the combination of references into a night vision device as suggested by Qiu. The rationale for doing so is that is would have been obvious to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143 I.A.
The references fail to disclose the aspect ratio of the microchannel plate. However, it has been held to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the size of a prior art product. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota et al. (US 20190331617 A1) in view of Finley et al. (US 5,830,252)(Finley).
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 12 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].
The intermediate layer 12 is a metal oxide such as Al2O3, ZnO, HfO2, or TiO2. See paragraph [0031].
Ota discloses the intermediate layer should be dense (paragraph [0022), but fails to disclose the relative density of the ion barrier layer.
Finley discloses a sodium (i.e., ion) barrier layer. See col. 2, lines 28-34. The barrier layer is ZrO2 or TiO2 having a relative density (i.e., M/N%) of greater than 95%. See col. 4, lines 49-65. The high density results in a more effective barrier against ion migration. See col. 4, lines 49-60.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have formed the ion barrier of Ota to have a relative density of greater than 95% because the resultant layer more effectively operates to prevent ion migration.
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
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
Prosecution Insights