DETAILED ACTION
National Stage Application
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 14 February 2025 does not fully comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.98 because: it lacks a legible copy of each foreign patent (e.g., Cite No 2) and each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed. Since the submission appears to be bona fide, applicant is given ONE (1) MONTH from the date of this notice to supply the above mentioned omissions or corrections in the information disclosure statement. NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME LIMIT MAY BE GRANTED UNDER EITHER 37 CFR 1.136(a) OR (b). Failure to timely comply with this notice will result in the above mentioned information disclosure statement being placed in the application file with the noncomplying information not being considered. See 37 CFR 1.97(i).
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(a) in claim 11, “a third electrode” on lines 4-5 should probably be --the third electrode--; and
(b) in claim 11, “a second electrode” on line 6 should probably be --the second electrode--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”. Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… voltage applier 31 applies a voltage so that a potential of the drift electrode 15 is higher than a potential of the outermost curved electrode 14. In addition, the voltage applier 31 applies a voltage so that a potential of the counter electrode 12 is lower than a potential of the innermost curved electrode 14. That is, the potential of point A illustrated in FIG. 5 is higher than a potential of point C, the potential of point B is higher than the potential of point A, and a potential of point D is higher than the potential of point B. As a result, an electric field is generated inside the semiconductor portion 11 so that a potential increases as a distance from the signal output electrode 13 decreases. Electrons generated in response to incidence of radiation more easily move inside the semiconductor portion 11 toward the signal output electrode 13 due to the electric field. …” in paragraph 41) serves as a glossary for the claim term “potentials of the second electrode and the third electrode are higher than a potential of the outermost fourth electrode and lower than a potential of the innermost fourth electrode”.
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 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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
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.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (Generalization of the modeling and design considerations of concentric and spiral Si drift detectors, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A Vol. 730 (Available online July 2013), pp. 73-78).
In regard to claim 7, Li discloses a radiation detection element, comprising:
(a) a semiconductor portion having an incident surface onto which radiation is incident (e.g., “… Si drift detector (SDD) …” in section 1);
(b) a first electrode which is provided on a rear surface of the incident surface and into which electric charges generated in the semiconductor portion by incidence of radiation flow (e.g., “… carriers generated by incident particles to drift to the collection anode, as shown in Fig. 1 …” in section 1 and see “n+anode Vanode = 0” in Fig. 1);
(c) a second electrode provided on the incident surface, located on a rear side of the first electrode, and being applied a voltage required for causing the electric charges to flow into the first electrode (e.g., “… carriers generated by incident particles to drift to the collection anode, as shown in Fig. 1 …” in section 1 and see “VBE1” in Fig. 1); and
(d) a third electrode provided on the incident surface and disposed at a position surrounding the second electrode (e.g., see “VBout” in Fig. 1),
wherein the third electrode is electrically connected to the second electrode (e.g., “… implant sheet resistance ρs …” in section 3), and a voltage is applied to the second electrode (e.g., see “VBE1” in Fig. 1) and the third electrode (e.g., see “VBout” in Fig. 1) so that a potential changes from the third electrode to the second electrode (e.g., see “Fig. 5. The backside surface electric potential profiles in a symmetrical SDD as a function of γ.” of Fig. 5).
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 7, Li also discloses that a plurality of third electrodes is provided, the plurality of third electrodes is electrically connected to each other and are spaced from the second electrode at mutually different distances, and a voltage is applied to the second electrode and the plurality of third electrodes (e.g., see Fig. 5) so that a potential monotonically changes from an outermost third electrode among the plurality of third electrodes toward the second electrode (e.g., see Fig. 5).
In regard to claim 9 which is dependent on claim 7, Li also discloses that a plurality of sets of the second electrode and the third electrode is provided, and the plurality of sets of the second electrode and the third electrode is two-dimensionally arranged (e.g., “… an array of SDD …” in abstract).
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 7, Li also discloses that further comprising a plurality of fourth electrodes provided on the rear surface of the incident surface, disposed at positions surrounding the first electrode, and spaced at mutually different distances from the first electrode, wherein a voltage is applied to the plurality of fourth electrodes so that a potential monotonically increases from an outermost fourth electrode to an innermost fourth electrode, and a voltage is applied to the second electrode and the third electrode so that potentials of the second electrode and the third electrode are higher than a potential of the outermost fourth electrode and lower than a potential of the innermost fourth electrode (e.g., “… backside potential proportional to front side one: Ψ(r) = VB + γΦ(r) (0 ≤ γ < 1) (21) (at γ = 0 it reduces to that of Ref. [1]) …” in section 2 and see “Fig. 5. The backside surface electric potential profiles in a symmetrical SDD as a function of γ.” of Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (Generalization of the modeling and design considerations of concentric and spiral Si drift detectors, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A Vol. 730 (Available online July 2013), pp. 73-78) in view of Rehak et al. (Arrays of silicon drift detectors for an extraterrestrial X-ray spectrometer, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A Vol. 624 (Available online June 2010), pp. 260-264) and De Geronimo et al. (ASIC for SDD-Based X-Ray Spectrometers, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science Vol.: 57, no 3 (June 2010), pp. 1654-1663).
In regard to claim 11, Li discloses a radiation detector, comprising the radiation detection element (the cited prior art is applied as in claim 7 above). While Li also discloses (section 1) “… Si drift detector (SDD) [1-3] …” and “… [2] P. Rehak, et al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods A 624 (2010) 260 …”, the apparatus of Li lacks an explicit description of a collimator configured to shield radiation, wherein the collimator is disposed to cover a third electrode included in the radiation detection element and not to cover at least a part of a second electrode included in the radiation detection element. However, “… [2] P. Rehak, et al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods A 624 (2010) 260 …” teach (sections 1, 3, and References) “… X-Ray Spectrometer (XRS) that utilizes an array of hexagonal Silicon Drift Detectors (SDDs) coupled to an Application Specific Integrated Circuit of BNL design. On the lunar surface, the fluorescence X-rays are produced by solar wind on the illuminated part of the Moon. The SDD XRS would be positioned on a satellite orbiting the Moon, and pointed towards its surface. The sensitive area on the lunar surface, called the footprint, is defined by a simple system of collimators, one for each SDD of the array … spectrum of Mn fluorescence from a 55Fe source as well as an additional fluorescence induced by this radiation from some other elements is shown in Fig. 5 … [8] G.De Geronimo, P. Rehak, K. Ackley, G. Carini, W. Chen, J. Fried, J. Keister, S. Li, Z. Li, D.A. Pinelli, D.P. Siddons, E. Vernon, J.A. Gaskin, B.D. Ramsey, T.A. Tyson, ASIC for SDD-based X-ray Spectrometers, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., in press …” and “… [8] G.De Geronimo, P. Rehak, K. Ackley, G. Carini, W. Chen, J. Fried, J. Keister, S. Li, Z. Li, D.A. Pinelli, D.P. Siddons, E. Vernon, J.A. Gaskin, B.D. Ramsey, T.A. Tyson, ASIC for SDD-based X-ray Spectrometers, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., in press …” teach (section 2A) “… Fig. 2 depicts the molybdenum mask we sited at the entrance side of the sensor, opposite to the pixelated side. Its purpose is to prevent ionizing radiation from reaching the sensor along the edges of the pixels, thus reducing charge sharing between pixels, and consequently, increasing the peak-to-background ratio. The thickness and the width between pixels of the molybdenum mask are 125 μm and 240 μm respectively …”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose a collimator to cover the third electrode of Li and not covering at least a part of the second electrode, in order “to prevent ionizing radiation from reaching the sensor along the edges of the pixels, thus reducing charge sharing between pixels, and consequently, increasing the peak-to-background ratio”.
In regard to claim 12, Li discloses a radiation detection apparatus, comprising the radiation detector (the cited prior art is applied as in claims 7 and 11 above). While Li also discloses (section 1) “… Si drift detector (SDD) [1-3] …” and “… [2] P. Rehak, et al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods A 624 (2010) 260 …”, the apparatus of Li lacks an explicit description of a radiation portion configured to radiate radiation onto a sample, a spectrum generator configured to generate a spectrum of radiation detected by the radiation detector, and a display unit configured to display a spectrum generated by the spectrum generator. However, “… [2] P. Rehak, et al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods A 624 (2010) 260 …” teach (sections 1, 3, and References) “… X-Ray Spectrometer (XRS) that utilizes an array of hexagonal Silicon Drift Detectors (SDDs) coupled to an Application Specific Integrated Circuit of BNL design. On the lunar surface, the fluorescence X-rays are produced by solar wind on the illuminated part of the Moon. The SDD XRS would be positioned on a satellite orbiting the Moon, and pointed towards its surface. The sensitive area on the lunar surface, called the footprint, is defined by a simple system of collimators, one for each SDD of the array … spectrum of Mn fluorescence from a 55Fe source as well as an additional fluorescence induced by this radiation from some other elements is shown in Fig. 5 … [8] G.De Geronimo, P. Rehak, K. Ackley, G. Carini, W. Chen, J. Fried, J. Keister, S. Li, Z. Li, D.A. Pinelli, D.P. Siddons, E. Vernon, J.A. Gaskin, B.D. Ramsey, T.A. Tyson, ASIC for SDD-based X-ray Spectrometers, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., in press …” and “… [8] G.De Geronimo, P. Rehak, K. Ackley, G. Carini, W. Chen, J. Fried, J. Keister, S. Li, Z. Li, D.A. Pinelli, D.P. Siddons, E. Vernon, J.A. Gaskin, B.D. Ramsey, T.A. Tyson, ASIC for SDD-based X-ray Spectrometers, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., in press …” teach (section 2A) “… Fig. 2 depicts the molybdenum mask we sited at the entrance side of the sensor, opposite to the pixelated side. Its purpose is to prevent ionizing radiation from reaching the sensor along the edges of the pixels, thus reducing charge sharing between pixels, and consequently, increasing the peak-to-background ratio. The thickness and the width between pixels of the molybdenum mask are 125 μm and 240 μm respectively …”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a display unit for displaying a “spectrum of Mn fluorescence” detected by the “… Si drift detector (SDD) [1-3] …” of Li with providing a spectrum generator for generating the “spectrum of Mn fluorescence from a 55Fe source” (and wherein the “55Fe source” can labeled as a radiation portion configured to radiate radiation onto a sample).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7,105,827 teaches a semiconductor drift detector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 (571)272-3995. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights