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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species I, claim 1-3 and 5-9, in the reply filed on February 17, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the examiner has not satisfied the burden in making the restriction and the election should be withdrawn”. This is not found persuasive because serious search burden of distinct and dependent inventions was established due to the different search strategies and different search queries that would be required; the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4 and 10-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 17, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 30, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "ROIC layers" and "detector layers" (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: "FIG. 4" should read "FIG. 5" ([0041], last line).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are 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.
The claimed limitation of "a read-out integrated circuit (ROIC) stack-up", as recited in claim 1, line 4, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a stack-up", as recited in claim 1, line 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Drab (2018/0114713).
As for claim 1, Drab shows in Figs. 2, 3, 4A, 5A, 5B, 6-8 and related text a method of eliminating interconnect strains in a stack-up, the method comprising:
providing a detector portion 801 comprising a detector substrate 802 and detector layers ([0033]);
providing a read-out integrated circuit (ROIC) stack-up 11 comprising ROIC layers 12 and an initial ROIC substrate 13 (Fig. 2);
removing the initial ROIC substrate from the ROIC layers (Fig. 4A);
attaching a new ROIC substrate 16 to a first surface 121 of the ROIC layers, the new ROIC substrate having a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) that matches a CTE of the detector substrate (Fig. 6; [0029]); and
hybridizing the detector layers to a second surface 122 of the ROIC layers by way of interconnects 803 (Fig. 8).
As for claim 2, Drab shows the first surface of the ROIC layers is a lower surface and the second surface of the ROIC layers is an upper surface opposite the lower surface (Fig. 8).
As for claim 3, Drab shows the attaching of the new ROIC substrate to the first surface comprises adhering the new ROIC substrate to the first surface and the interconnects are deposited prior to or following the adhering (Fig. 8).
As for claim 5, Drab shows the hybridizing comprises depositing the interconnects onto the second surface of the ROIC layers (Fig. 8; [0033]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
Claim(s) 6 and 7, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drab (2018/0114713) in view of Park et al. (2018/0172506).
As for claims 6 and 7, Drab disclosed substantially the entire claimed invention, as applied to claim 1 above, except the CTE of the new ROIC substrate exactly matches the CTE of the detector substrate (claim 6); and the new ROIC substrate comprises a same material as the detector substrate (claim 7).
Park et al. teach in Fig. 3 and related text the detector substrate 114 comprises sapphire ([0121]).
Drab and Park et al. are analogous art because they are directed to a stack-up and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Drab with the specified feature(s) of Park et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a detector formed on a sapphire substrate, as taught by Park et al., in Drab's device, in order to reduce thermal stress, minimize cracking and improve hybrid detector reliability.
Therefore, the combined device shows:
As for claim 6, the CTE of the new ROIC substrate exactly matches the CTE of the detector substrate.
As for claim 7, the new ROIC substrate comprises a same material as the detector substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of “the new ROIC substrate comprises cadmium-zinc-tellurium”, as recited in claim 8.
Claims 8 and 9 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEIYA LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, LYNNE GURLEY can be reached at (571)272-1670. 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.
/MEIYA LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811