DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication received on 4/15/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of AIA 35 U.S.C. code not present in this action can be found in previous office actions dated 1/15/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears there is a typo effecting dependency. Claim 19 depends from claim 17 when it references language only mentions in claim 18. Examiner assumes this is a typo and not antecedent basis issue. Examiner will interpret claim 19 as depending from claim 18 for compact prosecution.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a specific experiment, does not reasonably provide enablement for all the potential conditions of that fall within the scope of the claim.
Claim 9 recites that limitation of wherein the metal oxide mixture of the resistive layer is constructed and arranged to provide a resistance value that is the same before and after thermal annealing.
Examiner could only find support for this limitation from a single example provided in the specification seen in paragraph 35 wherein it is only the case for not just a particular ratio of materials, but for a particular set of materials (trimethylaluminum (TMA) and methyltrioxorhenium) but also only shown for the experimental conditions including pulse times, order of exposure and annealing temperature. As such, the Applicant does not have support for all the possible conditions taught in the broad claim. They only have support for an embodiment that matches the scope of those particular experimental conditions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 2nd Paragraph or AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The claim rejection(s) under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 2nd Paragraph or AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter on claim 1-7 are withdrawn because the independent claim 1 has been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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.
Specifically, Claim 19 reads as wherein using alternating exposures to the trioxorhenium precursor and TMA to form the conducting material includes: using alternating exposures to methyltrioxorhenium (MTO) and TMA to form the conducting material.
Claim 18 recites using alternating exposures to a trioxorhenium precursor and TMA to form conducting material.
Claim 19 merely recites that same words as claim 18 but in an different order as such it does not further limit claim 18.
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 § 103
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Elam et al. US PGPub 2012/0187305 hereinafter ELAM in view of Sharma et al. US Patent Number 11,158,513 hereinafter SHARMA and Yoshioka et al. US PGPub 2020/0212107 hereinafter YOSHIOKA on claims 1-7 are maintained because the claims have been cancelled/amended. The rejection is updated below to meet the added claim limitations. Further, claim(s) 8-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elam et al. US PGPub 2012/0187305 hereinafter ELAM in view of Sharma et al. US Patent Number 11,158,513 hereinafter SHARMA and Yoshioka et al. US PGPub 2020/0212107 hereinafter YOSHIOKA.
As for claim 1, ELAM teaches "A multi-component tunable resistive coating and methods of depositing the coating on the surfaces of a microchannel plate (MCP) detector" (abstract, lines 1-3), i.e. A method of manufacturing a detector device. ELAM teaches "One aspect of the present invention is to use ALD to prepare a resistive coating on the surface of the MCP channels. The resistive coating is a blend of a conducting component and an insulating component where the ratio of the conduc[t]ing and insulating components substantially defines the resistivity of the resistive coating, which, in various embodiments, may be tuned over at least seven orders of magnitude" (paragraph 10, lines 1-4), "The ALD precursor pulse sequence may be used to achieve the desired composition of the resistive coating" (paragraph 40, lines 1-2) and "For example, a Al2O3 resistive component layer may be prepared with alternating exposures (and nitrogen purge) of trimethylaluminium (TMA) (Al(CH3)) and water" (paragraph 45, lines 8-11) i.e. using a first atomic layer deposition (ALD) process with first precursor materials to deposit a resistive layer on a substrate and thereby form a resistive-coated substrate, the first precursor materials including… trimethylaluminum… the resistive layer being deposited as interspersed conductive and insulative regions having a ... constituent and an aluminum constituent respectively in a predetermined ratio.
ELAM further teaches “Various other metals and combinations of metals may be utilized in the conductive component of the resistive layer 102. Specifically, a predetermined number of ALD cycles of the conductive layer component and a metal oxide insulating layer component are performed using an resistive component ratio to achieve a desired MCP resistivity” (paragraph 46, lines 1-21), i.e. wherein trimethylaluminum is a co-reactant to the conductive component and the resistive layer being deposited as interspersed conductive and insulative regions having a… constituent and an aluminum constituent respectively in a predetermined ratio
ELAM does teach "The MCP can, for example, be used as a component in a detector system to detect low levels of electrons, ions, photons, or neutrons, and provide an amplified response via a plurality of secondary electron emissions that occur within the channels of the MCP" (paragraph 4, lines 2-6) and "one embodiment, a microchannel substrate having a tunable resistive coating for electron amplification comprises a resistive coating conformally coating the surfaces of the channels within the microchannel substrate" (paragraph 11, lines 1-4), i.e. the resistive layer being configured for connection to external sensing circuitry in use of the detector device.
ELAM is silent on rhenium.
SHARMA teaches "Methods for forming a rhenium-containing film on a substrate by a cyclical deposition are disclosed" (abstract, lines 1-2).
SHARMA teaches "In some embodiments, the rhenium precursor may comprise rhenium oxydifluoride (ReOF2), or rhenium dioxydichloride (ReOCl2), and the second vapor phase reactant may comprise water (H2O)" (column 12, lines 25-29).
SHARMA further teaches "As a non-limiting example, certain rhenium oxide films, such as, for example, rhenium trioxide (ReO3), may exhibit very low electrical resistivity and may therefore be exploited in a number of semiconductor device applications, including, but not limited to, device interconnects, barrier layers, Schottky devices, metal-insulator-semiconductor (MIS) 10 devices, metal-insulator-metal devices (MIM), and as a portion of a gate electrode. Rhenium oxides may be also utilized in the doping of semiconductor devices. For example, rhenium oxides may be utilized to modulate the conductivity of semiconductor materials" (column 4, lines 4-15), i.e. depositing a conductive region having a rhenium constituent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include rhenium in the process of ELAM such that it includes the first precursor materials including a rhenium precursor… the resistive layer being deposited as interspersed conductive and insulative regions having a rhenium constituent and an aluminum constituent respectively in a predetermined ratio because SHARMA teaches that rhenium oxide exhibit low electrical resistivity and can be used to modulate the conductivity of semiconductor materials as is desired by ELAM.
ELAM teaches "Like the resistive coating layer 102, the emissive coating layer 104 may be formed by ALD or CVD" (paragraph 54, lines 8-10) and "The ALD precursor pulse sequence may be used to achieve the desired composition of the resistive coating" (paragraph 40, lines 1-2), i.e. using a second ALD process with second precursor materials to deposit an emissive layer on the resistive-coated substrate.
ELAM further teaches "The emissive coating layer 104 may comprise various components, including various metal oxides, nitrides and sulfides, to obtain an amplified secondary electron emission in response to a low-level input. The secondary electron emission is detected downstream from the MCP" (paragraph 54, lines 3-8), i.e. the emissive layer being constituted to generate electrical carriers in use of the detector device to be sensed by the external sensing circuitry as detected events.
ELAM and SHARMA are silent on wherein the first ALD process is performed at a deposition temperature above 200 °C to obtain a dark-current contribution of the resistive layer of less than 600 Hz/cm2.
YOSHIOKA teaches "the other object of the invention is to provide an optical sensor and an imaging element comprising the photoelectric conversion element" (abstract, lines 4-6).
YOSHIOKA further teaches "The present inventors have found that the compound contained in the photoelectric conversion film in the related art is more easily crystallized on the substrate as the substrate temperature during vapor deposition performed for forming the photoelectric conversion film. Stated another way, it is assumed that, in the obtained photoelectric conversion film, the compound in the photoelectric conversion film is crystallized depending on the substrate temperature during vapor deposition, and as a result, the dark current of the obtained photoelectric conversion element becomes large" (paragraph 34).
YOSHIOKA further teaches "an aluminum oxide (Al2O3) layer was formed thereon by an atomic layer chemical vapor deposition (ALCVD) method to produce a photoelectric conversion element." (paragraph 224, lines 4-8), i.e. wherein the deposition temperature effects the dark current of the final vapor deposited layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the deposition temperature such that the suppression of dark current is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 2, ELAM teaches "According to various embodiments, by adjusting the ratio of resistive coating may be tuned over at least seven orders of magnitude" (paragraph 34, lines 4-8) and "The deposition temperature may affect the resistivity of the films for instance if the growth rates of the insulating and conducting components change with temperature. In this case, the composition of the film will change even if the percentage of metal cycles is kept constant" (paragraph 51, lines 4-8), i.e. further including selection of the predetermined ratio of the conductive and insulative regions based on the deposition temperature, higher deposition temperature requiring higher insulator content in the resistive layer to reach a target plate resistance for the detector device.
As for claim 3, ELAM teaches "The MCP disc is generally fabricated from highly resistive glass" (paragraph 5, lines 5-6), "The present invention provides improved thin film coatings that may be applied to a microporpous substrate, including the surfaces of the channels within the substrate" (paragraph 9, lines 1-3), and "Wet chemical etching or other techniques are used to remove the core glass component from the composite glass fiber bundles resulting in the formation of the MCP pores. The MCP pores form a parallel array of straight, circular open channels with diameters typically of about 10 to 40 microns" (paragraph 6, lines 1-5), i.e. wherein the substrate is a glass channel array having an array of elongated voids forming respective channels.
ELAM further teaches "According to various embodiments, by adjusting the ratio of conductive components to resistive components, the resistivity of the resistive coating may be tuned over at least seven orders of magnitude. Additionally, by varying the thickness of the resistive coating material within the pores of the substrate, the resistivity may further be tuned as desired. Modulating these parameters (resistive component ratio and resistive coating material thickness), the electrical resistance of the coating material may be selectively controlled over a broad range of resistance with substantial precision" (paragraph 34, lines 4-15) and "Additionally, substantial control over the resistivity may be achieved by modulating the thickness of the resistive coating 102 within the channels" (paragraph 39, lines 4-6), i.e. further including selection of the predetermined ratio of the conductive and insulative sublayers based on a size of the channels.
As for claim 4, ELAM teaches "For example, a Al2O3 resistive component layer may be prepared with alternating exposures (and nitrogen purge) of trimethylaluminium (TMA) (Al(CH3)) and water'' (paragraph 45, lines 8-11 ).
ELAM further teaches "The ALD precursor pulse sequence may be used to achieve the desired composition of the resistive coating. The atomic layer deposition of alloys is conventionally deposited through a 1:X (X: 1,2,3, ... ) cycle ratio. One cycle is usually performed for the doping component and then X cycles are performed for the main component" (paragraph 40, lines 1-6), i.e. the ALD compounding a aluminum compound and water.
ELAM teaches "The resistive layer component ratio is established by modulating the ALD cycles of[A/B] to [C/D]. For example, a 1 :2 resistive component ratio is approximated by performing one ALD cycle of [A/B] for two ALO cycles of [C/D], A/B/C/D/C/D. One skilled in the art will appreciate that various resistive component ratios may be applied to obtain the desired thickness of the component layers and resistivity of the resistive layer 102" (paragraph 44, lines 1-8), wherein a person of
ordinary skill in the art can design the ALO sequence they need to produce the resistive
component ratio they desire.
ELAM is silent on the rhenium compound.
SHARMA teaches "In some embodiments, the rhenium precursor may comprise rhenium oxydifluoride (ReOF2), or rhenium dioxydichloride (ReOCl2), and the second vapor phase reactant may comprise water (H2O)" (column 12, lines 25-29).
SHARMA further teaches "As a non-limiting example, certain rhenium oxide films, such as, for example, rhenium trioxide (ReO3), may exhibit very low electrical resistivity and may therefore be exploited in a number of semiconductor device applications, including, but not limited to, device interconnects, barrier layers, Schottky devices, metal-insulator-semiconductor (MIS) 10 devices, metal-insulator-metal devices (MIM), and as a portion of a gate electrode. Rhenium oxides may be also utilized in the doping of semiconductor devices. For example, rhenium oxides may be utilized to modulate the conductivity of semiconductor materials" (column 4, lines 4-15), i.e. depositing a conductive region having a rhenium constituent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a rhenium constituent as the conductive constituent in the process of ELAM such that it includes because SHARMA teaches that such a material have very low electrical resistivity and can be used to modulate the conductivity of semiconductor materials in microelectronic applications. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the conductive regions are deposited on a detector device with one or more channels using a sequence of three precursor materials of either A-B-C or C-B-A, A being a rhenium compound, B being an aluminum compound, and C being water because ELAM establishes that the cyclic sequence of precursors effects the ratio of the constituents and therefore the final resistivity of the layer. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 5, ELAM teaches "The deposition temperature may affect the resistivity of the films for instance if the growth rates of the insulating and conducting components change with temperature" (paragraph 51, lines 4-7), i.e. further including selection the deposition temperature based on a target resistivity for the detector device.
As for claim 6, ELAM teaches "ELAM teaches "Like the resistive coating layer 102, the emissive coating layer 104 may be formed by ALD or CVD" (paragraph 54, lines 8-10) and "The ALD precursor pulse sequence may be used to achieve the desired composition of the resistive coating" (paragraph 40, lines 1-2), i.e. wherein the second ALD process produces an emissive-coated substrate.
ELAM is silent on further including annealing the emissive-coated substrate to produce an annealed substrate.
SHARMA teaches "Upon deposition of the capping layer 404 over a surface of the rhenium oxide film 402, the methods of the disclosure may further comprise thermally annealing the rhenium oxide film 402" (column 20, lines 54-57) and "In some embodiments, thermally annealing the rhenium oxide film 402 may further comprise reducing the electrical resistivity of the rhenium oxide film" (paragraph 21, lines 4-6),i.e. further including annealing the ... coated substrate to produce an annealed substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include further including annealing the emissive-coated substrate to produce an annealed substrate in the combined process of ELAM and SHARMA because SHARMA teaches that such a step allows for further tuning of the resistivity of the layer.
As for claim 7, ELAM and SHARMA are silent on wherein a resistance of the emissive-coated substrate is higher than a target resistance for the detector device, and the annealing is performed at a temperature providing a resistance drop and produce the detector device having the target resistance accordingly.
However, ELAM does teach "The coatings include various multi-component resistive coatings that have a highly tunable resistivity that is controlled by modulating the composition and ratio of the coating components as well as the coating thickness" (paragraph 9, lines 4-7).
SHARMA also teaches "As a non-limiting example, certain rhenium oxide films, such as, for example, rhenium trioxide (ReO3), may exhibit very low electrical resistivity and may therefore be exploited in a number of semiconductor device applications ... For example, rhenium oxides may be utilized to modulate the conductivity of semiconductor materials" (column 4, lines 4-15) and "In some embodiments, thermally annealing the rhenium oxide film 402 may further comprise reducing the electrical resistivity of the rhenium oxide film" (paragraph 21, lines 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have wherein a resistance of the emissive-coated substrate is higher than a target resistance for the detector device, and the annealing is performed at a temperature providing a resistance drop and produce the detector device having the target resistance accordingly because ELAM teaches that tuning the resistivity of an alternating stack allows for fine tuned control over the final device and SHARMA teaches that its compounds and process can be used to modulate/reduce the resistivity of compounds.
As for claim 8, ELAM teaches “The insulating component is composed of a insulating metal oxides” (paragraph 10, lines 13-14), i.e. wherein the resistive layer includes a metal oxide mixture having an insulating oxide.
ELAM is silent on a conductive oxide.
SHARMA teaches "As a non-limiting example, certain rhenium oxide films, such as, for example, rhenium trioxide (ReO3), may exhibit very low electrical resistivity and may therefore be exploited in a number of semiconductor device applications, including, but not limited to, device interconnects, barrier layers, Schottky devices, metal-insulator-semiconductor (MIS) 10 devices, metal-insulator-metal devices (MIM), and as a portion of a gate electrode. Rhenium oxides may be also utilized in the doping of semiconductor devices. For example, rhenium oxides may be utilized to modulate the conductivity of semiconductor materials" (column 4, lines 4-15), i.e. rhenium oxide being a conductive oxide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a conductive oxide in the mixtures of ELAM because SHARMA teaches that rhenium oxide exhibit low electrical resistivity and can be used to modulate the conductivity of semiconductor materials as is desired by ELAM.
As for claim 9, ELAM is silent on annealing.
SHARMA teaches “For example, the semiconductor structure 406 including the rhenium oxide film 402 may be thermally annealed at a temperature greater than 50° C… In some embodiments, thermally annealing the rhenium oxide film 402 may further comprise increasing the grain size of the crystallites comprising the rhenium oxide film 402” (paragraph 20, lines 55-65), i.e. wherein the resistance does not change in this embodiment for rhenium oxide when annealed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include annealing in the combination of ELAM and SHARMA such that it includes wherein the metal oxide mixture of the resistive layer is constructed and arranged to provide a resistance value that is the same before and after thermal annealing because SHARMA teaches that such a process can include the grain sizes of the crystallites in the rhenium oxide film.
As for claim 10, ELAM teaches “The insulating component is composed of a insulating metal oxides, for example, Al2O3” (paragraph 10, lines 13-14), i.e. wherein the metal oxide mixture includes one of group consisting of… alumina.
ELAM is silent on the alumina providing resistance that withstands an annealing temperature of at least 325 °C.
However, Examiner notes that this appears to be an inherent property of the material of alumina. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999). Further, nevertheless, the discovery of a new property or use of a previously known compositions, even when that property and use are unobvious from prior art, cannot impart patentability to claims to the known composition. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 778 F.2d 775, 782, 227 USPQ 773, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
As for claim 11, ELAM teaches “An MCP is comprised of an array of narrow pores in a flat plate that permeate from the front surface of the plate to the back surface of the plate. A high voltage is applied across the plate such that the back surface is typically at 1000 V higher potential than the front surface” (paragraph 4, lines 6-10), i.e. after further processing is performed to provide a functionalized substrate, connecting the functionalized substrate to a high voltage source constructed and arranged to provide 1000 V to form a microchannel plate amplifier.
As for claim 12, ELAM teaches “The desired resistivity of the resistive layer 102 may be achieved by selection of the insulating component and the conductive component and, in particular, the ratio of the components deposited on the MCP. The resistive component ratio, the ratio of the conductive component to the insulating component) is controlled by modulating the ratio of ALO cycles of the respective components. Thus, a 1:2 ratio of ALO cycles of the conductive component (1 cycle) and the insulating component (2 cycles), approximates a 1:2 resistive component ratio of the conductive component to the insulating component in the resistive layer 102. By increasing the portion of the conductive component of the ratio, the resistivity may be adjusted, in various embodiments, by at least seven orders of magnitude, for example, from about 106 to about 1014 Ohms·cm.” (paragraph 42).
ELAM teaches “For example, the process does not allow for independent control over the resistance and secondary electron yield (SEY) characteristics of the MCP. Significantly, the resulting MCP is generally characterized by a negative temperature coefficient that causes the MCP to heat, leading to increased current, which further heats the plate, resulting in thermal runaway” (paragraph 8, lines 2-6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the sheet resistance such that the desired thermal properties to avoid thermal runaway is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 14, ELAM teaches “The resistive layer component ratio is established by modulating the ALD cycles of [A/B] to [C/D]. For example, a 1:2 resistive component ratio is approximated by performing one ALD cycle of [A/B] for two ALD cycles of [C/D], A/B/C/D/C/D. One skilled in the art will appreciate that various resistive component ratios may be applied to obtain the desired thickness of the component layers and resistivity of the resistive layer 102” (paragraph 44, lines 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the order of ALD cycle sets such that the ratio between components and thereby the resistance is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 15, ELAM teaches “The resistive layer component ratio is established by modulating the ALD cycles of [A/B] to [C/D]. For example, a 1:2 resistive component ratio is approximated by performing one ALD cycle of [A/B] for two ALD cycles of [C/D], A/B/C/D/C/D. One skilled in the art will appreciate that various resistive component ratios may be applied to obtain the desired thickness of the component layers and resistivity of the resistive layer 102” (paragraph 44, lines 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the order of ALD cycle sets such that the thickness of the components and thereby the resistance is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 16, ELAM teaches “One aspect of the present invention is to use ALD to prepare a resistive coating on the surface of the MCP channels. The resistive coating is a blend of a conducting component and an insulating component where the ratio of the conducing and insulating components substantially defines the resistivity of the resistive coating, which, in various embodiments, may be tuned over at least seven orders of magnitude” (paragraph 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the ratio of Al2O3 such that the desired final resistance is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 17, ELAM teaches “The resistive layer component ratio is established by modulating the ALD cycles of [A/B] to [C/D]. For example, a 1:2 resistive component ratio is approximated by performing one ALD cycle of [A/B] for two ALD cycles of [C/D], A/B/C/D/C/D. One skilled in the art will appreciate that various resistive component ratios may be applied to obtain the desired thickness of the component layers and resistivity of the resistive layer 102” (paragraph 44, lines 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the constituent ratio such that the thickness of the components and thereby the resistance is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 18, ELAM teaches “typical ALD scheme may be utilized for forming the insulating component layers and the conductive component layers that make up the resistive layer. Namely, in an ALD reactor a insulating component layer is formed by alternately exposing a substrate, such as MCP, to a metalorganic precursor or other metallic precursor compound and an oxidizingreactant, thus forming the insulating metal oxide component layer on the surfaces of the MCP, including the channel surfaces within the MCP. Similarly, the conductive component layer is formed by alternately exposing the substrate to a metal organic precursor or other metallic precursor compound and an additional reactant such as an oxygen-free precursor which may be a reducing agent, thus forming the conductive metal or metal nitride or metal sulfide layer on the MCP” (paragraph 43, lines 1-15), and "For example, a Al2O3 resistive component layer may be prepared with alternating exposures (and nitrogen purge) of trimethylaluminium (TMA) (Al(CH3)) and water" (paragraph 45, lines 8-11) and “Various other metals and combinations of metals may be utilized in the conductive component of the resistive layer” (paragraph 46), i.e. wherein providing the conductive constituent and the aluminum constituent in the ratio includes: using alternating exposures to a… precursor and another precursor to form conducting material; and using alternating exposures to TMA and water to form insulating material.
SHARMA further teaches "As a non-limiting example, certain rhenium oxide films, such as, for example, rhenium trioxide (ReO3), may exhibit very low electrical resistivity and may therefore be exploited in a number of semiconductor device applications, including, but not limited to, device interconnects, barrier layers, Schottky devices, metal-insulator-semiconductor (MIS) 10 devices, metal-insulator-metal devices (MIM), and as a portion of a gate electrode. Rhenium oxides may be also utilized in the doping of semiconductor devices. For example, rhenium oxides may be utilized to modulate the conductivity of semiconductor materials" (column 4, lines 4-15).
SHARMA further teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the alkyl rhenium oxide precursor comprises methyl rhenium trioxide (CH3ReO3)” (claim 6), i.e. trioxorhenium precursor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include rhenium in the process of ELAM such that it includes using alternating exposures to a trioxorhenium precursor and TMA to form conducting material because SHARMA teaches that rhenium oxide exhibit low electrical resistivity and can be used to modulate the conductivity of semiconductor materials as is desired by ELAM and ELAM teaches mixing metals for the conductive layer.
As for claim 19, see rejection of claim 18 above.
As for claim 20, as combined for claim 1, 17, and 18, ELAM and SHARMA teach wherein the deposited interspersed conductive and insulative regions include alumina and rhenium oxide forming a halide free resistive layer as there are no halides present in the reaction. See the rejection above for details.
ELAM and SHARMA are silent on the halide free layer minimizing risk of negatively impairing secondary electron emissive (SEE) properties. However, Examiner notes that the combination is inherently halide free such that minimizing the risk would be present. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999). Further the mere recognition of latent properties, such as minimization of negatively impairing the SEE properties, in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979).
Claim(s) 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elam et al. US PGPub 2012/0187305 hereinafter ELAM in view of Sharma et al. US Patent Number 11,158,513 hereinafter SHARMA and Yoshioka et al. US PGPub 2020/0212107 hereinafter YOSHIOKA as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Blick et al. US PGPub 2009/0321633 hereinafter BLICK.
As for claim 13, ELAM, SHARMA and YOSHIOKA are silent on stacking multiple microchannel plates together.
BLICK teaches “Given their usefulness for amplifying electron signals, electron multiplier devices are key components in a range of systems including detectors, display devices and other high speed electronic systems. The application of electron multipliers for detector applications, for example, has led to the development of microchannel plate detector systems which are currently the most widely implemented detector platform for mass spectrometry” (paragraph 4, lines 1-8).
BLICK further teaches “Secondary electron emission in these systems can be significantly enhanced using field emission (FE), wherein an electrical bias is provided to the system to facilitate extraction of the SEE generated. Electron multipliers are currently available that are capable of providing very significant gains functionality on the order of 105 to 109 for stack configurations” (paragraph 3, lines 20-26), i.e. wherein stacking SEE detectors provide gains in a range that encompasses 108.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include stacking multiple microchannel plates together to produce 108 gains in the process of ELAM, SHARMA and YOSHIOKA because BLICK teaches that stacking secondary electron emission systems, which includes microplates, provide greater sensitivity and functionalities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues against the rejection by individually listing different teachings and failures of the art. Each of these observations will be addressed separately:
(a) Applicant notes that ELAM makes no mention of Rhenium.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). ELAM was not relied upon to teach rhenium. The fact it is silent on this element is irrelevant to this rejection as other references were relied upon and read in to teach it.
(b) Applicant alleges SHARMA teaches rhenium but fails to teach microchannel plates. SHARMA focuses on tribology, low-frication applications, solar cell applications, quantum computing and ultrafast data processing.
Examiner notes this may be an attempt to claim they are not directed to the same art as ELAM. Examiner also notes that Applicant has only quoted specific examples of SHARMA's discussion of the application of its technology and is not considering that "As a non-limiting example embodiment, the rhenium containing film may comprise a conductive rhenium oxide film and may be utilized in semiconductor device structures including conductive interconnections for electrically connecting one or more semiconductor device structures" (column 30, lines 42-46) and calls out specific purposes where its rhenium oxide can be exploited in a number of semiconductor device applications. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teachings away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
In this case, SHARMA is establishing rhenium oxide as a useful tool for modulating the conductivity of semiconductor materials in semiconductor devices, and ELAM teaches that's its MCP detector is made of conductive and semiconductive materials (paragraph 35).
They are related in their broader teachings so any suggestion that they are not related art ignores that fact that SHARMA's teachings relate to a broad category of modulating conductivity in semiconductor devices, in which ELAM also belongs.
(c) Applicant alleges YOSHIOKA teaches that dark current can become large when there is high substrate temperature during vapor deposition and states this comes from paragraph 34-35.
Examiner could find no teaching that high substrate temperature results in a high dark current value. There is no mention of 'high surface temperature', only a recitation that surface temperature effects the dark current value. And while YOSHIOKA does suggest surface temperature can result in a high dark current value, the Applicant's assertion that YOSHIOKA only teaches a 'high temperature' results in 'high dark current energy' is not found in those paragraphs.
Applicant has accused office action of 'broadening the teaching' by stating 'wherein temperature effects the dark current of the final vapor deposited layer. however it seems that Applicant is restricting YOSHIOKA's actual teachings to only relate to 'high temperature' with basis because those words don't even appear in YOSHIOKA. Examiner points out that the exact wording of YOSHIOKA is "has been found that the obtained photoelectric conversion element may have a larger dark current depending on the substrate temperature during vapor deposition and may not satisfy the recently required level" (paragraph 7, lines 8-11). There is nothing suggesting that the larger dark current depends on a higher surface temperature, only that it depends on a surface temperature. Thus Applicant's argument cannot be considered persuasive because it does not address the full scope of teaching.
In summation, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive as they attack references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references, and they fail to consider the broader teachings of the art.
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 KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
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, Dah Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights