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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that in regard to claim 1 that the combination of Bui and Gee prior art, does not teach the limitation of “wherein the detector is configured such that primary electrons created by the particles from the radiation source drift toward the readout region and are multiplied in the n multiplication layer, creating secondary electrons and secondary holes, and wherein the secondary electrons drift toward the readout region such that an amplified signal is carried by the primary and secondary electrons, while the secondary holes drift away from the readout region.”
In response to this argument, the Examiner directs the applicant’s attention to the combination of Bui and Gee prior art, which teaches the recited limitation as follows:
wherein the detector is configured such that primary electrons created by the particles from the radiation source drift toward the readout region (18) and are multiplied in the n multiplication layer (104), creating secondary electrons and secondary holes, and wherein the secondary electrons drift toward the readout region (18) such that an amplified signal is carried by the primary and secondary electrons, while the secondary holes drift away from the readout region (18) (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown below).
Note: Bui identical or substantially identical in structure as the claimed invention; hence, the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.
In addition, during patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). While the claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, F.3d, 2004 WL 1067528 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.) This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless applicant has provided a clear definition in the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) >; Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The Examiner would further point out that “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Therefore, the combination of Bui and Gee prior art reference does meet all the limitation in claim 1.
Specification
Amendment to the specification filed on 11/12/2025 has been reviewed and entered.
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, 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) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bui (U.S. 2015/0171256 A1, hereinafter refer to Bui) in view of Gee et al. (U.S. 2022/0352400 A1, hereinafter refer to Gee).
Regarding Claims 1 and 9: Bui discloses a low-penetrating particles low gain avalanche detector with a multi- layered structure, configured to receive particles from a radiation (light) source (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown below and ¶ [0002]), wherein the detector comprises:
PNG
media_image1.png
456
749
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an entry region, configured to receive the particles from the radiation (light) source (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown above), and that comprises:
a p++ shallow field stop (112) (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown above), and
a low-penetrating particles detection region, which comprises the following layers (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown above), in increasing depth:
a p absorption layer (110), positioned beneath the p++ shallow field stop (112) (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown above),
an n multiplication layer (104), positioned beneath the p absorption layer (110) (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown above),
a high-penetrating particles detection region (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown above), which comprises:
an n-- silicon substrate (102), following the n multiplication layer (104), below the low- penetrating particles detection region (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown above),
a readout region (18), contacting the high-penetrating particles detection region (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown above), and
a periphery region, which comprises:
a p+ termination doping (114), positioned laterally on both sides of the p++ shallow field stop (112) (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown above), and
one or more metal contacts (116), joined to the p++ shallow field stop (112) (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown above),
wherein the detector is configured such that primary electrons created by the particles from the radiation source drift toward the readout region (18) and are multiplied in the n multiplication layer (104), creating secondary electrons and secondary holes, and wherein the secondary electrons drift toward the readout region (18) such that an amplified signal is carried by the primary and secondary electrons, while the secondary holes drift away from the readout region (18) (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown above) (as claimed in claim 1);
wherein the readout region (18) additionally comprises electrodes, following the high-penetrating particles detection layer, opposite to the low- penetrating particles detection layer (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown above) (as claimed in claim 9).
Note: Bui identical or substantially identical in structure as the claimed invention; hence, the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.
Bui is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein the readout region additionally comprises segmented electrodes (as claimed in claim 9).
Before effective filing date of the claimed invention the disclosed readout region were known additionally to comprises segmented electrodes in order to overcome the current granularity limits of Low-Gain-Avalanche-Detector (LGAD) sensors.
For support see Gee, which teaches wherein the readout region (222) additionally comprises segmented electrodes (224) (see Gee, Fig.2 as shown below, ¶ [0005], ¶ [0097], and ¶ [0102]) (as claimed in claim 9).
PNG
media_image2.png
555
913
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bui and Gee to enable the Bui readout region to comprises segmented electrodes as taught by Gee in order to overcome the current granularity limits of Low-Gain-Avalanche-Detector (LGAD) sensors.
Regarding Claim 2: Bui as modified teaches a low-penetrating particles low gain avalanche detector with a multi- layered structure as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Bui and Gee further teaches wherein the entry region additionally comprises a protective layer (150), positioned over the p++ shallow field stop (112) (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 3: Bui as modified teaches a low-penetrating particles low gain avalanche detector with a multi- layered structure as set forth in claim 2 as above. The combination of Bui and Gee further teaches wherein the protective layer (150) is a conversion layer for incoming neutrons (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 4: Bui as modified teaches a low-penetrating particles low gain avalanche detector with a multi- layered structure as set forth in claim 2 as above. The combination of Bui and Gee further teaches wherein the periphery region additionally comprises a silicon oxide layer, positioned beneath the protective layer (150) (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown above).
Regarding Claims 5, 6, and 7: Bui as modified teaches a low-penetrating particles low gain avalanche detector with a multi- layered structure as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Bui and Gee further teaches wherein the p++ shallow field stop (112) has a thickness of less than 100 (300) nanometers (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown above) (as claimed in claim 5);
wherein the n multiplication layer (104) is within the range of 1 to 5 (10 to 100 µm mines 2 to 5 µm) micrometers thickness (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown above) (as claimed in claim 6);
wherein the n-- silicon substrate (102) is within the range of 10 to 1000 (250 to 400 µm mines 10 to 100 µm) micrometers thickness (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown above) (as claimed in claim 7).
The combination of Bui and Gee teaches a larger thickness of p++ shallow field stop and smaller thickness of n-- silicon substrate as shown above; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the thickness of p++ shallow field stop and n-- silicon substrate through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the p++ shallow field stop and n-- silicon substrate is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Regarding Claim 8: Bui as modified teaches a low-penetrating particles low gain avalanche detector with a multi- layered structure as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Bui and Gee further teaches wherein the periphery region additionally comprises n++ ohmic contacts (108), positioned on both sides of the P absorption layer (110) (see Bui, Fig.1 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 10: Bui as modified teaches a low-penetrating particles low gain avalanche detector with a multi- layered structure as set forth in claim 9 as above. The combination of Bui and Gee further teaches wherein the segmented electrodes (224) comprise n++ contacts (232), in contact with the n-- silicon substrate (204), and additional metal contacts (224), connected to the n++ contacts (232) (see Gee, Fig.2 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 11: Bui as modified teaches a low-penetrating particles low gain avalanche detector with a multi- layered structure as set forth in claim 9 as above. The combination of Bui and Gee further teaches wherein the readout region additionally comprises p+ stops (234), alternating with the segmented electrodes (224) and in contact with the n-- silicon substrate (204) (see Gee, Fig.2 as shown above).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BITEW A DINKE whose telephone number is (571)272-0534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)272-1945. 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.
/BITEW A DINKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812