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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 25 October 2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (e.g., paragraph 92) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, “the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper”. Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(a) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(b) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(c) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 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 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) 1-4, 6, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahim et al. (US 2015/0312501) in view of Tkaczyk et al. (US 2013/0108019) and Herrmann et al. (US 2015/0285676).
In regard to claim 1, Fahim et al. disclose an X-ray imaging device, comprising:
(a) a transfer substrate comprising electric connection elements (e.g., see “… Interposer: A large area sheet, which can be covered with additional metal layers on top and bottom such that each metal layer is isolated by a dielectric layer … outermost top and bottom metal layers can be used to also make pads, which are used to bond components on both sides. Any number of metal layers and traces can be used for connectivity between one or more detector pixels to one or more ASIC pixels … a (semiconductor/dielectric) sheet layer 110 and several metal layers such as 115 and 120 Layers 110,115, and 120 are all electrically isolated from each other using dielectric layers (not shown). These three layers are shown merely for purposes of illustration and more or fewer layers may be included as necessary depending on design consideration …” in
PNG
media_image1.png
1691
1687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and paragraphs 29 and 35);
(b) an array of pixels, each comprising a monolithic elementary chip bonded and electrically connected to elements of electric connection of the transfer substrate, and a direct conversion X photon detector electrically connected to the elementary chip, wherein, in each pixel, the elementary chip comprises an integrated circuit for reading from the detector of the pixel, and wherein a pitch of the monolithic elementary chips on the transfer substrate and a pitch of the direct conversion X photon detectors on the transfer substrate are equal to a pitch of the pixels of the X-ray imaging device (e.g., see “… Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), which contains an array of at least one pixel which includes an entire processing chain … All pixels have input pads for connecting to sensor … Pixilated sensor: Any large area pixilated is segmented sensing material, which produces charge signals in response to incident radiation. Its segmentation defines pixels … Any number of metal layers and traces can be used for connectivity between one or more detector pixels to one or more ASIC pixels … readout ASICs 125, 130, and 135 can have multiple processing channels arranged in an array of 1 or more pixels … It should be appreciated that each pixel associated with an ASIC connects to a sensor pixel of larger geometry … smaller pixel size on the ASIC (compared to the sensor pixel size) provides spacing between the AS I Cs. With this geometry the vertical and horizontal space between ASICs may be any number … sensor 105 can be a standard design … preferable sensor material is silicon, but other known materials may alternatively be used. For example, other materials such as CdTe, CdZTe, Ge, GaAs, etc., can be used in some applications …” in Fig. 1 and paragraphs 27-29, 34, 45, 48.and 50).
The device of Fahim et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… readout ASICs …” such as the elementary chip comprises an inorganic LED control by an integrated circuit for each of the pixels, and details of the “… sensor 105 can be a standard design …” such as the detector comprises a lower electrode made of a transparent conductive material for each of the pixels. However, “… sensor …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… wavelength is configured of sufficiently short wave length to create detrapping of trapped charge. For example, for CZT and CdTe, in one embodiment, the wavelength of illumination source 60 is greater than about 0.9 but less than 25 microns … illumination by the illumination sources 60 may be provided at different locations or by different means. For example, in one embodiment, the illumination sources 60 are provided such that the illumination is through the cathode or anode contacts, which may be fabricated from a transparent conductor material, for example, a transparent conducting oxide such as indium tin oxide (ITO) …” in paragraphs 35 and 36 of Tkaczyk et al.) and “… readout ASICs …” details are also known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… CMOS (Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor) readout circuit or chip 50, e.g. and application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) … IR irradiation device (i.e. the IR LED layer 10) is integrated into the readout chip 50 to which the CZT crystal 60 is flip-chip bonded … Irradiation with sub-band IR LED light, where the optical photons have an energy which is smaller than the band gap, reduces the tendency towards polarization within pixels of the CZT crystal 60 so that counting at higher X-ray fluxes becomes possible … IR irradiation can be done from the cathode side (i.e. upper side in FIG. 1), where the cathode metallization (not shown) probably may not be an obstacle, since it is thin …” in paragraphs 28 and 29 of Herrmann et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional sensor (e.g., comprising details such as “cathode or anode contacts, which may be fabricated from a transparent conductor material, for example, a transparent conducting oxide such as indium tin oxide (ITO)”, in order to “create detrapping of trapped charge”) for the unspecified sensor of Fahim et al., substituted a known conventional readout ASIC (e.g., comprising details such as “LED layer 10) is integrated into the readout chip 50”, in order to achieve “counting at higher X-ray fluxes”) for the unspecified readout ASIC of Fahim et al., and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. 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 known conventional sensor and readout ASIC (e.g., comprising details such as, in each pixel, the elementary chip of the pixel comprises an inorganic LED and an integrated circuit for controlling the LED, and wherein in each pixel, the detector comprising a lower electrode made of a transparent conductive material) as the unspecified sensor and readout ASIC of Fahim et al.
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1, the device of Fahim et al. lacks an explicit description that, in each elementary chip, the integrated circuit for reading from the detector of the pixel is formed in CMOS technology. However, readout circuits are well known in the art (e.g., see “… CMOS (Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor) readout circuit or chip 50, e.g. and application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) … IR irradiation device (i.e. the IR LED layer 10) is integrated into the readout chip 50 to which the CZT crystal 60 is flip-chip bonded … Irradiation with sub-band IR LED light, where the optical photons have an energy which is smaller than the band gap, reduces the tendency towards polarization within pixels of the CZT crystal 60 so that counting at higher X-ray fluxes becomes possible … IR irradiation can be done from the cathode side (i.e. upper side in FIG. 1), where the cathode metallization (not shown) probably may not be an obstacle, since it is thin …” in paragraphs 28 and 29 of Herrmann et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional readout circuit (e.g., comprising “CMOS (Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor) readout circuit or chip 50, e.g. and application specific integrated circuit (ASIC)”, in order to achieve “counting at higher X-ray fluxes”) for the unspecified readout circuit of Fahim et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. 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 known conventional readout circuit (e.g., comprising a CMOS integrated circuit) as the unspecified readout circuit of Fahim et al.
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 1, Fahim et al. also disclose that, in each pixel, the detector comprises an active detection stack based on a semiconductor material adapted to directly converting X photons into electric charges (e.g., see “… Pixilated sensor: Any large area pixilated is segmented sensing material, which produces charge signals in response to incident radiation. Its segmentation defines pixels … readout ASICs 125, 130, and 135 can have multiple processing channels arranged in an array of 1 or more pixels … sensor 105 can be a standard design … preferable sensor material is silicon, but other known materials may alternatively be used. For example, other materials such as CdTe, CdZTe, Ge, GaAs, etc., can be used in some applications …” in Fig. 1 and paragraphs 28, 34, and 50).
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 3, Fahim et al. also disclose that the active detection stack continuously extends over the entire surface of the pixel array (e.g., see “… sensor 105 …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 50).
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1, Fahim et al. also disclose that, in each pixel, the detector covers the elementary chip of the pixel (e.g., see Fig. 1).
In regard to claim 13 which is dependent on claim 3, Fahim et al. also disclose that the semiconductor material is gallium arsenide or cadmium-zinc telluride (e.g., see “… Pixilated sensor: Any large area pixilated is segmented sensing material, which produces charge signals in response to incident radiation. Its segmentation defines pixels … readout ASICs 125, 130, and 135 can have multiple processing channels arranged in an array of 1 or more pixels … sensor 105 can be a standard design … preferable sensor material is silicon, but other known materials may alternatively be used. For example, other materials such as CdTe, CdZTe, Ge, GaAs, etc., can be used in some applications …” in Fig. 1 and paragraphs 28, 34, and 50).
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahim et al. in view of Tkaczyk et al. and Herrmann et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 and 3 above, and further in view of in view of Kim et al. (US 2011/0309259).
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 3, Fahim et al. also disclose that the detection comprises a lower electrode being individualized per pixel (e.g., see “… Pixilated sensor: Any large area pixilated is segmented sensing material, which produces charge signals in response to incident radiation. Its segmentation defines pixels … sensor 105 can be a standard design …” in Fig. 1 and paragraphs 28 and 50). The device of Fahim et al. lacks an explicit description that the “standard design” comprises an upper electrode being common to all the pixels of the device. However, sensors are well known in the art (e.g., see “… a planarization layer covering the plurality of ASICs on the PCB, a plurality of pixel electrodes formed on the planarization layer to correspond to the ASICs, a photoconductor layer covering the plurality of pixel electrodes on the planarization layer, a common electrode on the photoconductor layer to face the plurality of pixel electrodes and on which an X-ray is incident …” in paragraph 18 of Kim et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional sensor (e.g., comprising “a common electrode”, in order to read out signals) for the unspecified sensor of Fahim et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. 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 known conventional sensor (e.g., comprising an upper electrode being common to all the pixels of the device) as the unspecified “standard design” sensor of Fahim et al.
In regard to claim 10, claim limitations in this application that use the word “by means of” are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because it appear to be modified by sufficient structure. Further, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 1 above. Fahim et al. disclose a method of manufacturing an X-ray imaging device wherein the elementary chips are transferred and bonded to the transfer substrate (e.g., see “… ASICs are bump bonded, or otherwise connected via any other known interconnection technique, to the other side of the interposer …” in Fig, 1 and paragraph 67). The method of Fahim et al. lacks an explicit description that the elementary chips are collectively transferred by a temporary support substrate. However, Kim et al. teach (paragraphs 124 and 125) that “… Referring to FIG. 7G, the insulating layer 730 is bonded to the PCB 710 via bumps 735 so as to electrically connect the contacts 724 of the ASICs 720 and the second contact plugs 730b. To this end, after the bumps 735 are formed on the second contact plugs 730b or the contacts 724, the PCB 710 and the insulating layer 730 are thermally bonded to each other. Referring to FIG. 7H, the glass substrate 742 is removed using a CMP process, for example …”. 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 temporary support substrate in the method of Fahim et al. to collectively transfer the elementary chips, in order to perform additional fabrication steps after removal of the temporary support substrate.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahim et al. in view of Tkaczyk et al. and Herrmann et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of in view of Karim et al. (US 2019/0113466).
In regard to claims 8 and 9, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 1 above. The device of Fahim et al. lacks an explicit description of being stacked on another one of the X-ray imaging device to form an assembly with a filtering layer between said device and said another one of the X-ray imaging device. However, Karim et al. teach (paragraph 51) that “… multilayer (i.e. stacked) X-ray detector of FIG. 6 may be used to simultaneously capture multiple images at different image planes with adaptable X-ray spectra for PB-XPC. A multilayer detector typically includes a plurality of stacked x-ray conversion layers on optional substrates with optional intermediate x-ray filter materials (such as schematically shown in FIG. 6), where critically, each conversion layer captures information in a different image plane …”. 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 filtering layer between stacked sensors of Fahim et al., in order to achieve “PB-XPC”.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahim et al. in view of Tkaczyk et al. and Herrmann et al. and Kim et al. as applied to claim(s) 10 above, and further in view of Tran et al. (US 5,182,624).
In regard to claims 11 and 12 which are dependent on claim 10, the method of Fahim et al. lacks an explicit description of a step of deposition of a planarization layer after transfer and bonding of the elementary chips onto the transfer substrate and a step of transfer of the detectors onto the upper surface of a planarization layer. However, Kim et al. teach (first column 10 paragraph) that “… Preferably, the planarization layer 53 has a "planarized", i.e., smooth, upper surface …”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transfer detectors onto upper surface of a planarization layer deposited onto transfer substrate with bonded elementary chips in the method of Fahim et al., in order to obtain planar detectors with a desired thickness tolerance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but some are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
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