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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-2, 7-10 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan et al. (US 2023/0116284, hereinafter “Zhan”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhan teaches in Figs. 1-3 (Fig. 2 and annotated Fig. 3 shown below) and related text an electronic device, comprising:
a substrate (100, annotated Fig. 3 and ¶[0061]);
a gate line (102, Fig. 2 and annotated Fig. 3 and ¶[0070]), disposed on the substrate; and
a switch element (103, Fig. 2 and annotated Fig. 3 and ¶[0063]), disposed on the substrate and electrically connected to the gate line (Fig. 2); and
a photodetector (104-106, Fig. 2 and annotated Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0058]-[0061]), disposed on the substrate and electrically connected to the switch element, wherein the photodetector comprises a first semiconductor (105, annotated Fig. 3 and ¶[0058]),
wherein in a cross-sectional view of the electronic device, one sidewall of the first semiconductor (105, Fig. 2 and annotated Fig. 3) and the gate line (102, Fig. 2 and annotated Fig. 3) are spaced from each other by a first distance (D1, Fig. 1 and annotated Fig. 4A), and the first distance is between 3 micrometers to 9 micrometers (i.e. in the annotated Fig. 3 D1 is approximately 3 times D2, which is disclosed by Zhan as being from 1 to 3 micrometers (¶[0061]), which translates D1 of 3 to 9 micrometers, which overlaps the claimed range of greater than or equal to 2 micrometers and less than or equal to 6 micrometers), where it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the range of Zhan to the claimed range in order to meet specific design requirements.
PNG
media_image1.png
677
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (S/D)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (S/D)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (2nd semiconductor)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (D2)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (gate line)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (D11)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
432
703
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 (1), teaching of Zhan was disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1, which includes the first distance of 3 micrometers to 9 micrometers. While Hayashi does not explicitly teach that the first distance is less than or equal to 5 micrometers, modifying the distance disclosed by Zhan to the claimed range would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as doing so would amount to nothing more than selecting specific values within a narrow range disclosed by Zhan in order to meet specific design requirements.
Regarding claim 7 (1), Zhan teaches wherein the photodetector (104-106, annotated Fig. 3) detects an intensity of electromagnetic wave (e.g. x-rays, ¶[0066]) and generates an electrical signal (¶[0059]), and the switch element (103, annotated Fig. 3) receives the electric signal (¶[0059]).
Regarding claim 8 (1), Zhan teaches wherein the photodetector further comprises a first electrode (106, annotated Fig. 3) and a second electrode (104, annotated Fig. 3), the first semiconductor (105, annotated Fig. 3) is disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (106, 104, annotated Fig. 3), in the cross-sectional view of the electronic device, at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode is spaced from the one sidewall of the first semiconductor by a second distance, and the second distance is greater than or equal to 0.5 micrometer and less than or equal to 6 micrometers (i.e. Zhan teaches the second distance between 1 and 1.5 micrometers, ¶[0061], which falls fully within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 9 (8), Zhan teaches wherein the second distance is between 1 micrometer and 1.5 micrometer, which overlaps the claimed distance of greater than or equal to 1.5 micrometers and less than or equal to 4.5 micrometers, where it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the range disclosed by Zhan to the claimed range in order to meet specific design requirements.
Regarding claim 10 (8), Zhan teaches wherein the first semiconductor (105, annotated Fig. 3) of the photodetector is electrically connected to a source electrode of the switch element through the second electrode (104, annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15 (1), Zhan further teaches:
a scintillator (108, annotated Fig. 3 and ¶[0065]), wherein in a top view of the electronic device, the scintillator and the photodetector are overlapped (annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16 (1), Zhan teaches wherein the photodetector (104-106, annotated Fig. 3) is disposed between the scintillator (108, annotated Fig. 3) and the substrate (100, annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17 (1), Zhan teaches wherein the switch element is a transistor (103, annotated Fig. 3 and ¶[0051]).
Regarding claim 18 (1), Zhan teaches wherein the switch element (103, annotated Fig. 3) comprises a gate electrode (102, annotated Fig. 3), a second semiconductor (4, Fig. 2 and ¶[0064]), a source electrode (annotated Fig. 3 and ¶[0064]), and a drain electrode (annotated Fig. 3 and ¶[0064]), the gate electrode is disposed on the substrate (100, annotated Fig. 3), the second semiconductor is disposed on the gate electrode (annotated Fig. 3), the source electrode and the drain electrode (annotated Fig. 3) are respectively disposed on the second semiconductor (annotated Fig. 3), and the source electrode and the drain electrode are electrically connected to the second semiconductor, respectively (annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19 (1), Zhan further teaches comprising:
another gate line (e.g. a second 102 from the top in Fig. 1), disposed on the substrate and parallel to the gate line (Fig. 1),
wherein in the cross-sectional view of the electronic device, the other sidewall opposite to the one sidewall of the first semiconductor is spaced from the another gate line by another first distance, and the another first distance is greater than or equal to 2 micrometers and less than or equal to 6 micrometers (i.e. since the gate line at the another gate line are spaced apart from the first semiconductor of the photoelectric detector by the same distance, the other sidewall of the first semiconductor would be spaced from the another gate line by another first distance that is the same as the first distance as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 20 (19), teaching of Zhan was disclosed above in the rejection of claim 19, which includes the another first distance being greater than or equal to 2 micrometers and less than or equal to 6 micrometers. While Zhan does not explicitly teach that another first distance is greater than or equal to 3 micrometers and less than or equal to 5 micrometers, modifying the distance disclosed by Zhan to the claimed range would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as doing so would amount to nothing more than selecting specific values within a narrow range disclosed by Zhan in order to meet specific design requirements.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayashi (US 2011/0127593, hereinafter “Hayashi”).
Regarding claim 3 (1), teaching of Zhan was discussed above in the rejection of claim 1 and further includes a conductive wire (107, annotated Fig. 3 and ¶[0054]) and a first insulation layer (113, annotated Fig. 3 and ¶[0085]), wherein the conductive wire is electrically connected to the photodetector (104-106, annotated Fig. 3), the first insulation layer is disposed between the photodetector and the conductive wire. While Zhan does not explicitly teach that a thickness of the first insulation layer is greater than or equal to 0.5 micrometer and less than or equal to 3 micrometers, forming first insulation layer disclosed by Zhan to the claimed thicknesses would have within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Hayashi. Specifically, Hayashi, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches that the first insulation film (14, Fig. 2 and ¶[0050]) similar to that disclosed by Zhan, and made from the same materials as those disclosed by Zhan can be formed from 0.5. to 1.5 micrometers (¶[0050]), which overlaps the claimed range, where it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the range of Zhan and Hayashi to the claimed range in order to meet specific design requirements.
Regarding claim 4 (3), the combined teaching of Zhan and Hayashi discloses wherein the thickness of the first insulation layer (Hayashi, 14, Fig. 2 and ¶[0050]) is between 0.5 to 1.5 micrometers (Hayashi, ¶[0050]), which is overlapping the claimed range of greater than or equal to 1 micrometer and less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, where it would be obvious to modify the range of Zhan and Hayashi to the claimed range as it would amount to nothing more than selecting particular values from a narrow range disclosed by Zhan and Hayashi, in order to meet specific design requirements.
Regarding claim 5 (3), the combined teaching of Zhan and Hayashi discloses wherein the conductive wire (Zhan, 107, Fig. 2) intersects with the gate line (Zhan, 102, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6 (3), the combined teaching of Zhan and Hayashi discloses wherein the first insulation layer (Zhan, 113, annotated Fig. 3) has an opening (Zhan, annotated Fig. 3), and the conductive wire (Zhan, 107, annotated Fig. 2) is electrically connected to a first electrode (Zhan, 106, annotated Fig. 2) of the photodetector through the opening of the first insulation layer (Zhan, 113, annotated Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Jung (US 2010/0163882, hereinafter “Jung”).
Regarding claim 11 (8), teaching of Zhan was discussed above in the rejection of claim 8. Zhan, however, does not explicitly teach a second insulation layer, disposed on the second electrode, wherein the first semiconductor is disposed on the second insulation layer, the second insulation layer has a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, and in the cross-sectional view of the electronic device, an included angle between the first surface and the second surface is greater than 0 degree and less than or equal to 12 degrees. Jung, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a second insulation layer (75, Fig. 2 and ¶[0045]) disposed on the second electrode (68, Fig. 2 and ¶[0027]) the second insulation layer has a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, and in the cross-sectional view of the electronic device, an included angle between the first surface and the second surface is greater than 0 degree, in order to increase the area of the photoconductor (¶[0045]).
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the second insulation layer disclosed by Jung on the second electrode disclosed by Zhan in order to increase the area of the photoconductor.
Moreover, while Zhan and Jung do not explicitly teach that the included angle between the first surface and the second surface is less than or equal to 12 degrees, forming the second insulation layer so that the included angle between the first surface and the second surface is less than or equal to 12 degrees would have been within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art in order to meet specific design requirements for the electronic device.
Regarding claim 12 (11), the combined teaching of Zhan and Jung was discussed above in the rejection of claim 11. While Zhan and Jung do not explicitly teach that the included angle between the first surface and the second surface is greater than 2 degrees and less than or equal to 10 degrees, modifying the included angle disclosed by Zhan and Jung to fall within the claimed range would have been within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art, in order to meet specific design requirements.
Regarding claim 14 (11), the combined teaching of Zhan and Jung discloses wherein the second insulation layer (Jung, 75, Fig. 2) has an opening, and the first semiconductor (Jung, 70, Fig. 2) is electrically connected to the second electrode (Jung, 68, Fig. 2) through the opening.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 13 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding an electronic device, particularly characterized a second insulation layer disposed on the second electrode of the photodetector, wherein in the cross-sectional view of the electronic device, an intersection between the first surface and the second surface of the second insulation layer is spaced from an edge of the second electrode by a third distance, and the third distance is greater than or equal to 2 micrometers and less than or equal to 5.5 micrometers, in combination with all other elements of the electronic device recited in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANETA B CIESLEWICZ whose telephone number is 303-297-4232. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 2:30 PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/A.B.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893