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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the insulating layer overlapping the photodiode" In lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “insulating layer between layers of the substrate and photodiode”, as recited in claim 1, seems to be positionally distinct from “the insulating layer overlapping the photodiode”, as recited in claim 6. Clarification requested.
Claim 7 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 6.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito (CN 108701701) (cited by Applicant) (referred herein to WO 2017150295).
Regarding claim 1, Ito teaches (Fig. 2) a detection device (100) comprising a substrate 1; a photodiode (9) in which a lower electrode (91), a semiconductor layer (92), and an upper electrode (93) are stacked on the substrate in the order as listed; a transistor (5) provided in the photodiode (9); an insulating layer (passivation film 6) provided between layers of the substrate (1) and the photodiode (9); and a planarizing layer (7) covering the insulating layer (6), wherein the insulating layer comprises a projecting portion (See annotated Fig. 2 below) that projects toward the photodiode in a direction orthogonal to the substrate (1), the planarizing layer (7) has a contact hole (21) provided in a position that is below the photodiode and overlaps the projecting portion of the insulating layer (6) (See annotated Fig. 2 below), the photodiode (9) is provided on an upper side of the planarizing layer (See Fig. 2) and is also provided so as to cover the contact hole, and the lower electrode of the photodiode is electrically coupled to the transistor at a bottom of the contact hole. (Page 6, lines 3-5 the lower electrode of the photodiode is connected to the drain electrode (source electrode 4) of the thin film transistor).
PNG
media_image1.png
267
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Projecting portion)]
Regarding claim 8, Ito illustrates a width of the projecting portion in a first direction parallel to the substrate (1) is larger than a width of the bottom of the contact hole (21) in the first direction. (See annotated Fig. 2 above)
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Yamada (US 20120038018) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 9, Ito does not teach “wherein a width of the bottom of the contact hole in a first direction parallel to the substrate is larger than a width of an inclined surface of the contact hole in the first direction.”
Yamada, in a related field of endeavor, illustrates (Fig. 14) wherein a width of the bottom of the contact hole (150c) in a first direction parallel to the substrate is larger than a width of an inclined surface of the contact hole in the first direction.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Ito to teach “wherein a width of the bottom of the contact hole in a first direction parallel to the substrate is larger than a width of an inclined surface of the contact hole in the first direction” as taught by Yamada. Doing so provides a configuration that can improve the detection sensitivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 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.
Claims 6-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, Ito teaches a plurality of the insulating layers (6, 7, 11, 12); but does not teach “an overlapping conductive layer provided between the insulating layers and overlapping the contact hole of the planarizing layer in plan view, wherein the projecting portion is formed at a portion of at least one of the insulating layers that overlaps the overlapping conductive layer.”
Kato (US 4855802), in a related field of endeavor, teaches a contact type image sensor (Figs. 7a, 8a) comprising insulating layers (3, 10) an overlapping conductive layer (electrodes 1) provided between the insulating layers and overlapping the contact hole (11) of the planarizing layer (10) in plan view, but does not teach wherein the projecting portion (4) is formed at a portion of at least one of the insulating layers that overlaps the overlapping conductive layer.
Nakano (WO 2016195000), in a related field of endeavor, illustrates (Figs. 6E-6H) a plurality of the insulating layers (31, 33); and an overlapping conductive layer (23) provided between the insulating layers and overlapping the contact hole (CH3) of the planarizing layer (33) in plan view, but does not teach “wherein the projecting portion is formed at a portion of at least one of the insulating layers that overlaps the overlapping conductive layer”.
Claims 3-5 are allowable by virtue of their dependence from claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, Doguchi (CA 2127297) teaches an opto-electronic integrated circuit device comprising a recessed portion provided in an area of the insulating layer overlapping the photodiode so as to surround the contact hole (Abstract; Figs. 16-17; Page 24, lines 8-15), however, it does not further teach “wherein the projecting portion is formed at a portion of the insulating layer surrounded by the recessed portion, and the planarizing layer is provided so as to cover the recessed portion.”
Claim 7 is allowable by virtue of their dependence from claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Om A. Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-6331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/OM PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791