DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-13, filed 8/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9, 11-19, 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Liddiard et al (US 9,305,735 B2) and Strano et al (WO 2023/154776 A1). A Final rejection is made necessitated by amendment.
Response to Amendment
The amendment submitted 8/19/2026 has been accepted and entered. Claims 2, 10 , 20-21, 23-26 are cancelled. Claims 1, 9, 11, 22 are amended. No new claims are added. Thus, claims 1, 3-9, 11-19, 22 are examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-19, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liddiard et al (US 9,305,735 B2) and Strano et al (WO 2023/154776 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liddiard et al discloses an x-ray window (80) construct comprising: a structural frame (87) (See Fig. 8 and col. 4, lines 39-40) comprising an aperture (support structure comprises a plurality of ribs (83) having openings (84) (See Fig. 8 and col. 4, lines 40-42); and a window layer covering the aperture and affixed to the structural frame, comprising a polymer (See Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 35-36). Liddiard et al is silent with regards to a two-dimensional polymer material as claimed. Strano et al discloses a 2D polymer formed by reacting monomers covalently lock into flat two-dimensional repeating sheets (paragraphs [0020]). Strano et al teaches these freestanding films composed up to 100% of the 2D polymer material (paragraphs [0069]-[0072]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liddiard et al of an x-ray window with Strano et al of a 2D polymer. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to substitute traditional materials with 2D polymer, as taught supra by Strano et al, so as to achieve maximum x-ray transparency while maintaining a vacuum barrier.
Regarding claims 3-4, Liddiard et al in view of Strano et al discloses wherein these freestanding films composed up to 100% of the 2D polymer material (paragraphs [0069]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 5, Liddiard et al in view of Strano et al discloses wherein the two-dimensional polymer material is a two dimensional polyaramid (paragraph [0073]).
Regarding claim 6, Liddiard et al discloses wherein the window layer (10) is between 25-300 nanometers thick (50 nm to about 500 nm) (col. 3, lines 40-41).
Regarding claim 7, Liddiard et al discloses wherein the window layer (10) is between 50-300 nanometers thick (50 nm to about 500 nm) (col. 3, lines 40-41).
Regarding claims 8-9, Liddiard et al discloses wherein the window layer has thereon a layer which blocks visible light (aluminum layer) (col. 5, line 21).
Regarding claim 11, Liddiard et al discloses a method comprising: obtaining a first silicon wafer (col. 3, line 21) comprising a mask on a first side; attaching a second silicon wafer on the first side of the first silicon wafer, and etching one of the wafers to partially expose a window layer deposited on the opposite silicon wafer and to leave a structure defined by the mask supporting the window layer (support structure made by patterning and etching) (col. 6, lines 40-47), window layer comprising polymer material (See Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 35-36). Liddiard et al is silent with regards to a two-dimensional polymer material as claimed. Strano et al discloses a 2D polymer formed by reacting monomers covalently lock into flat two-dimensional repeating sheets (paragraphs [0020]). Strano et al teaches these freestanding films composed up to 100% of the 2D polymer material (paragraphs [0069]-[0072]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liddiard et al of an x-ray window with Strano et al of a 2D polymer. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to substitute traditional materials with 2D polymer, as taught supra by Strano et al, so as to achieve maximum x-ray transparency while maintaining a vacuum barrier.
Regarding claim 12, Liddiard et al discloses wherein the window layer is deposited on a non-attached side of the one of the silicon wafers (col. 6, lines 40-47).
Regarding claim 13, Liddiard et al discloses wherein the structure is formed of silicon of one of the silicon wafers (col. 5, line 21).
Regarding claim 14, Liddiard et al discloses wherein the method further comprises removing the mask, at least partly (col. 5, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 15, Liddiard et al discloses wherein the method further comprises depositing at least one surface layer on a side of the window layer that does not face the structure (col. 6, lines 40-47).
Regarding claim 16, Liddiard et al discloses wherein the at least one surface layer comprises an aluminum layer (col. 5, line 21).
Regarding claim 17, Liddiard et al discloses wherein the at least one surface layer comprises a graphene layer (col. 4, lines 53-54).
Regarding claim 18, Liddiard et al discloses wherein before attaching the second silicon wafer, part of the silicon of the first silicon wafer is etched from the first side in accordance with the mask (col. 6, lines 40-47).
Regarding claim 19, Liddiard et al discloses wherein an etch stop layer is provided between the window layer and the second silicon wafer mask (col. 6, lines 40-47).
Regarding claim 22, Liddiard et al discloses wherein a method comprising: obtaining a first silicon wafer comprising a silicon oxide layer thereon (col. 3, line 21), the silicon oxide layer comprising a recess; attaching a second silicon wafer on the first silicon wafer (col. 6, lines 40-47), the second silicon wafer having a window layer (80) (col. 4, lines 39-61) deposited thereon, the window layer (80) thereby being inserted into the recess (See Fig. 8 and col. 4, lines 40-42), and etching through the first silicon wafer to expose the window layer, and etching through the second silicon wafer in accordance with a mask, to construct a support structure for the window layer (col. 6, lines 40-47), the window layer comprising polymer material (See Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 35-36). Liddiard et al is silent with regards to a two-dimensional polymer material as claimed. Strano et al discloses a 2D polymer formed by reacting monomers covalently lock into flat two-dimensional repeating sheets (paragraphs [0020]). Strano et al teaches these freestanding films composed up to 100% of the 2D polymer material (paragraphs [0069]-[0072]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liddiard et al of an x-ray window with Strano et al of a 2D polymer. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to substitute traditional materials with 2D polymer, as taught supra by Strano et al, so as to achieve maximum x-ray transparency while maintaining a vacuum barrier.
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 FANI POLYZOS BOOSALIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2447. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 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, Uzma Alam can be reached at Uzma.Alam@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/F.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
