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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species III in the reply filed on April 8, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 uses the term “BOSCH” process. However, it is unclear what steps, parameters, materials and conditions are required in order to meet the requirements of a “BOSCH” process. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For purposes of the rejection, the term is treated as reciting a - - chemical etching - - process.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al (EP 697712 A1).
As to claim 16, Yamamoto discloses a method of fabricating a transmission target for an X-ray system (col.2, lines 28-29), comprising:
providing a first substrate (“first diamond plate” col.8, lines 56);
providing a second substrate (“second diamond plate” col.8, line 58);
depositing a layer of seed metal on the top surface of the second substrate (coating with Ti, Pt or Au, col.9, lines 7-8);
bonding the first substrate onto the second substrate (col.9, lines 8-10);
etching at least one via in the first substrate (“penetrating hole” col.9, lines 12-13); and
filling the vias with a target metal to form target metal blocks in the first substrate (“filled with copper” col.9, line 13).
As to claim 17, in another interpretation, the second substrate comprises silicon (“polycrystalline Si base,” col.8, line 51), and the method further comprises removing the second substrate (“dissolved by acid” col.8, lines 55-56.)
As to claim 18, Yamamoto discloses that the method further comprises bonding the first substrate with the layer of seed metal on the second substrate (col.9, lines 8-10).
As to claims 10-11, Yamamoto discloses that the first substrate and the second substrate are made of diamond (“first diamond plate” and “second diamond plate” col.8, lines 56-58).
As to claim 13, Yamamoto discloses that the layer of seed metal is deposited on the surface of the second substrate using a physical vapor deposition process (“evaporation,” col.9, lines 6-8).
As to claim 14, Yamamoto discloses that the layer of seed metal is a layer of platinum (col.9, lines 6-8).
As to claim 15, Yamamoto discloses that the target metal is copper (col.9, line 13).
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al (EP 697712 A1).
The discussion of Yamamoto from above is repeater here.
As to claim 12, Yamamoto discloses that the vias are etched in the first substrate by using the process described in Example 1 (col.9, lines 12-13), and Example 1 describes using a laser beam (col.8, lines 19-20). Yamamoto fails to disclose that the vias are etched by a BOSCH process. However, Yamamoto teaches that vias may be formed by etching, such as with oxygen or oxygen containing gas (col.6, lines 10-22) as a functionally equivalent technique to using a laser (col.5, lines 43-45). The oxygen etching process is, broadly interpreted, a BOSCH process or a chemical etching process. Yamamoto teaches that selective etching is useful because it provides for precise formation of vias (col. 7, lines 19-20). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the vias by a chemical etching process because Yamamoto teaches that it has the benefit of providing precise formation of vias, and because it is a functionally equivalent technique for forming vias and is expected to give the predictable result of a via suitable for an x-ray transmission target.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yun et al (US 2015/0092924 A1) is cited to methods of forming a transmission target and materials for the transmission target (Fig. 39A-39B,40). Yun et al (US 2016/0320320 A1) is cited to show materials for the target and substrate materials (Table 1). Tamura et al (US 2013/0195246 A1) is cited to show a transmission target with a target layer and an intermediate layer. Hamamatsu et al (EP 2293318 A1) is cited to show a focused ion beam (“FIB”) etch to form a hole and then to fill the hole with FIB-excited CVD for a target to generate x-rays.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA K ALANKO whose telephone number is (571)270-0297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ANITA K ALANKO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights