DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 12 JAN 2026 has been entered.
Response to Final Rejection Office Action
The 12 JAN 2026 amendments to claims 1 and 2 have been entered.
New Grounds of Rejection
A new ground of rejection, prior art reference NAYA (US 20090045510), appears below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by NAYA (US 20090045510; below, “NAYA”).
RE 1, NAYA, in FIGS. 1-8, and related text, e.g., Abstract, paragraphs [0001] to [0055], claims 1-7, discloses a sensor, comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
814
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a substrate (13, e.g., [0034]);
one or more components (33, e.g., [0038]) attached to the substrate (13);
a sensor die (12, e.g., [0027]) having a thinned backside (12b, e.g., [0031]) and
energy sensitive elements (15, e.g., [0032]) configured for detecting energy (e.g., light/electrons)
illuminating the thinned backside (12b) of the sensor die (12); and
discrete thermally-conductive structures (11a-11c) formed between a frontside (12a) of the sensor die (12) and the substrate (13) by a flip-chip process (e.g., [0014]) thereby bonding the sensor die (12) to the substrate (13) and causing the thinned backside of the sensor die (12) to have a pre-selected shape, wherein at least a portion of the discrete thermally-conductive structures (11a-11c) electrically connect the sensor die (12) to the one or more components (33), wherein the pre-selected shape is determined prior to the flip-chip process, wherein a shape of one or more of the discrete thermally-conductive structures (11a-11c) formed on the substrate prior to bonding the sensor die to the substrate in the flip-chip process is altered based on the pre-selected shape, and wherein (see McKnight for: at least one of a shape of the discrete thermally-conductive structures (11a-11c) in combination, the preselected shape, and a surface of the substrate on which the discrete thermally-conductive structures (11a-11c) are formed is non-flat), and wherein after the bonding, the thinned backside of the sensor die (12) and the surface of the substrate (13) to which the sensor die (12) is bonded have different shapes (e.g., FIG. 8).
Thus, NAYA anticipates this claim.
RE 2, NAYA discloses the sensor of claim 1, wherein prior to bonding the sensor die (12) to the substrate (13) in the flip-chip process, the shape of the one or more of the discrete thermally-conductive structures (11a-11c) is modified so that the discrete thermally-conductive structures (11a-11c) in the combination have the shape that is substantially the same as the pre-selected shape (e.g., FIG. 7).
RE 4, NAYA discloses the sensor of claim 1, wherein the surface of the substrate (13) on which the discrete thermally-conductive structures (11a-11c) are formed has a shape different than the pre-selected shape (e.g., FIGS. 7, 8).
RE 5, NAYA discloses the sensor of claim 1, wherein the surface of the substrate (13) on which the discrete thermally-conductive structures (11a-11c) are formed has a shape determined based on the pre-selected shape (e.g., FIGS. 1, 8, [0053]).
RE 6, NAYA discloses the sensor of claim 1, wherein the pre-selected shape is a curved shape (e.g., FIGS. 1, 8).
RE 7, NAYA discloses the sensor of claim 1, wherein the pre-selected shape is defined by a higher order polynomial (e.g., FIGS. 1, 8).
RE 15, NAYA discloses the sensor of claim 1, wherein the one or more components (33) are configured for performing one or more functions (e.g., signal integrity, thermal management) on output generated by the energy sensitive elements (15) responsive to the detected energy (e.g., light/electrons).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
See previous Office action for a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 8-10 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over NAYA with evidence from and/or in view of McKnight et al. (US 20180076257; below, “McKnight” – previously cited 27 JAN 2023 IDS noted prior art reference). At least “combining prior art elements”, “simple substitution”, “obvious to try”, and “applying a known technique to a known device” rationales support a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 8, NAYA is silent regarding the sensor of claim 1, wherein the substrate (13) is formed of a ceramic material. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a substrate formed of a ceramic material; since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). As evidence, see McKnight’s FIG. 11 and [0061].
RE 9, NAYA is silent regarding the sensor of claim 1, wherein the substrate (13) is formed of a material selected based on a coefficient of thermal expansion for the material determined from a size of the sensor die (12) and the pre-selected shape. As evidence, see McKnight’s FIG. 11 and [0061].
RE 10, NAYA is silent regarding the sensor of claim 1, wherein the discrete thermally-conductive structures (11a-11c) are formed of a material selected based on a reflow temperature for the material determined from a size of the sensor die (12) and the pre-selected shape.
McKnight teaches discrete thermally-conductive structures are formed of a material selected based on a reflow temperature for a material determined from a size of the sensor die and the pre-selected shape ([0069]).
NAYA and McKnight are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify NAYA as taught by McKnight because: 1. it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker … to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 16, NAYA is silent regarding the sensor of claim 1, wherein the energy sensitive elements (15) are further configured for detecting deep ultraviolet light.
McKnight teaches energy sensitive elements (106) configured for detecting deep ultraviolet light ([0039]).
NAYA and McKnight are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify NAYA as taught by McKnight because: 1. it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker … to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 17, NAYA is silent regarding the sensor of claim 1, wherein the energy sensitive elements (15) are further configured for detecting vacuum ultraviolet light.
McKnight teaches energy sensitive elements (106) configured for detecting vacuum ultraviolet light ([0039]).
NAYA and McKnight are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify NAYA as taught by McKnight because: 1. it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker … to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 18, NAYA is silent regarding the sensor of claim 1, wherein the energy sensitive elements (15) are further configured for detecting extreme ultraviolet light.
McKnight teaches energy sensitive elements (106) configured for detecting extreme ultraviolet light ([0039]).
NAYA and McKnight are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify NAYA as taught by McKnight because: 1. it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker … to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 19, NAYA is silent regarding the sensor of claim 1, wherein the energy sensitive elements (15) are further configured for detecting x-rays.
McKnight teaches energy sensitive elements (106) configured for detecting x-rays ([0039]).
NAYA and McKnight are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify NAYA as taught by McKnight because: 1. it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker … to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over NAYA with evidence from and/or in view of Pun et al. (US 20180102312; below, “Pun” – previously cited 27 JAN 2023 IDS noted prior art reference). MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 11, NAYA is silent regarding the sensor of claim 1, further comprising an underfill material formed around the discrete thermally-conductive structures (11a-11c) and between the frontside (12a) of the sensor die (12) and the substrate (13).
PNG
media_image2.png
451
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pun, in Figure 2 and related text, e.g., [0011] to [0047], teaches an underfill material (36) formed around discrete thermally-conductive structures (32) and between a die (30) and a substrate (10).
NAYA and Pun are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify NAYA as taught by Pun because: 1. protection of electrical connections between the chip and the substrate is realized to increase the life expectancy of the device (Pun [0030]); and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 12, modified NAYA is silent regarding the sensor of claim 11, wherein the underfill material is configured to stabilize the sensor die (12) when the sensor die (12) is subject to a vacuum.
Pun, in Fig. 2 and related text, e.g., [0011] to [0030], teaches an underfill material (36) configured to stabilize the die (30) when the die is subject to a vacuum.
NAYA and Pun are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify NAYA as taught by Pun because: 1. protection of electrical connections between the chip and the substrate is realized to increase the life expectancy of the device (Pun [0030]); and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 13, modified NAYA is silent regarding the sensor of claim 11, wherein the underfill material comprises a resin containing dispersed particles formed of a dielectric material with high thermal conductivity.
Pun, in Fig. 2 and related text, e.g., [0011] to [0030], teaches an underfill material (36) comprises a resin containing dispersed particles formed of a dielectric material with high thermal conductivity.
NAYA and Pun are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify NAYA as taught by Pun because: 1. protection of electrical connections between the chip and the substrate is realized to increase the life expectancy of the device (Pun [0030], [0047]); and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over NAYA with evidence from and/or in view of Trimpl (US 20210066035; below, “Trimpl” – previously cited). MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 14, NAYA is silent regarding the sensor of claim 1, further comprising thermally and electrically conductive vias formed in the substrate (13) with at least a subset configured for connecting the at least the portion of the discrete thermally-conductive structures (11a-11c) to the one or more components (33) thereby connecting the sensor die (12) to the one or more components (33).
PNG
media_image3.png
480
724
media_image3.png
Greyscale
NAYA and Trimpl are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify NAYA as taught by Trimpl to have thermally and electrically conductive vias formed in the substrate with at least a subset configured for connecting the at least the portion of the discrete thermally-conductive structures to the one or more components, as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). As evidence, see Trimpl’s FIG. 5B in which thermally and electrically conductive vias 505 connect to ASICs 507.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-19 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ 12 JAN 2026 rebuttal arguments (REM pages 6-10) are found to be unpersuasive in light of the arguments and positions outlined in the claim rejections supra. Additionally, the new ground of rejection was necessary due to the applicants’ amendments. Applicants’ arguments vis-à-vis patentability have been fully 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 Walter Swanson whose telephone number is (571) 270-3322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:30 to 17:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Benitez, can be reached on (571)270-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WALTER H SWANSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815