DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Claims 10-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-2019/0179039) by Kim et al (“Kim”) in view of (US-2022/0013553) by Janvier et al (“Janvier”).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses in FIGs. 5A-E and related text, e.g., a method for manufacturing a detection panel (Title), comprising:
providing a first flexible board (FIG. 5C, 210 (see pars. 52-55; 210 is an arbitrary number of SiO/SiN layers, with the number being at least 3; all the layers are flexible (this is the whole point of Kim’s invention); for purposes of rejection, the top 1 layers of 210 are “first flexible board”);
providing a circuit layer on the first flexible board (220);
providing a second flexible board (210; bottom 3 layers of 210 are “second flexible board”), and fixing the first flexible board on the second flexible board (see FIG. 5C), wherein the first flexible board is disposed between the circuit layer and the second flexible board (see FIG. 5C);
providing a carrier board (310), and fixing the carrier board on the second flexible board (by using 320),
wherein the second flexible board is disposed between the carrier board and the first flexible board (see FIG. 5C);
forming a scintillator (FIG. 5D, 260) on the circuit layer; and
detaching the carrier board (see FIG. 5E).
Kim does not explicitly state “cutting the first flexible board and the second flexible board”.
To elaborate briefly on the above, cutting is an almost inherent step in forming an overall device (FIG. 2 of Kim), before the device can be further processed (some sort of arranging or packaging with other semiconductor devices). Hence, why Kim does not explicitly state the steps, as opposed to does not teach.
Janvier discloses in FIG. 2 and related text, e.g., “cutting the substrate (FIG. 2, 12) around the bonded imager (11)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Kim with “cutting the substrate around the bonded imager” as taught by Janvier, in order to provide for the necessary step of guaranteeing that all the parts are cut to the same size, so that they would be ready for further processing, such as arranging or packaging (see FIG. 2, steps 104,105,106, for some non-limiting examples).
When these specific teachings of Janvier are applied to method of Kim it will result in “cutting the first flexible board and the second flexible board”, since Janvier teaches the cutting step, and Kim has already previously taught the device (“imager” of Janvier; “X-ray detector” of Kim is a type of an imager) and the specifics of underlying substrate (“first and second flexible board”).
Regarding claim 11, the combined method of Kim and Janvier disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., further comprising manufacturing a protective layer (FIG. 5D, 270) on the scintillator before detaching the carrier board (see FIGs. 5D-E).
Regarding claim 12, the combined method of Kim and Janvier disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the protective layer has a cap-like structure (see FIG. 5D).
Regarding claim 13, the combined method of Kim and Janvier disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein a thickness of the first flexible board is different from a thickness of the second flexible board (see definitions of layers in claim 10; 1 layer versus 3 layers; they meet the limitations).
Regarding claim 14, the combined method of Kim and Janvier disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the thickness of the first flexible board is smaller than the thickness of the second flexible board (see definitions of layers in claim 10; 1 layer versus 3 layers; the limitations are met).
Regarding claim 15, the combined method of Kim and Janvier disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entirety of claimed subject matter, but do not explicitly state “wherein areas of the first flexible board and the second flexible board are equal to each other after cutting”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the method of Kim and Janvier with “wherein areas of the first flexible board and the second flexible board are equal to each other after cutting”, in order to simplify the processing steps of making device, by cutting things in a normal way – vertically – thus resulting in all cut layers being the same area.
Regarding claim 16, the combined method of Kim and Janvier disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein in a top view of the detection panel, the first flexible board is overlapped with the second flexible board after the first flexible board and the second flexible board are cut (same as in claim 15).
Regarding claim 17, the combined method of Kim and Janvier disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., further comprising providing an adhesive layer (FIG. 5E, 320 reads on “adhesive layer”) between the carrier board and the second flexible board.
Regarding claim 18, the combined method of Kim and Janvier disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entirety of claimed subject matter, but do not explicitly state “wherein the adhesive layer is in a shape of a square in a top view of the detection panel”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the method of Kim and Janvier with “wherein the adhesive layer is in a shape of a square in a top view of the detection panel”, since MPEP teaches that change of shape is within the skills of a POSITA; hence, any normal basic shapes (such as various rectangular shapes, of which a square is a special case), are within the skills of a POSITA.
Regarding claim 19, the combined method of Kim and Janvier disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., “wherein cutting the first flexible board and the second flexible board is performed along a cutting line (by definition; wherever it is cut, that is a cutting line), wherein the cutting line is farther away from an edge of the carrier board than the adhesive layer (Janvier teaches cutting from the top; hence, looking from the top, the cutting line is there, and that cutting line is closer to 320 than to 310; thus meeting limitations).
Regarding claim 20, the combined method of Kim and Janvier disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entirety of claimed subject matter, but do not explicitly state “wherein the scintillator is formed on the circuit layer through direct vapor deposition”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the method of Kim and Janvier with “wherein the scintillator is formed on the circuit layer through direct vapor deposition”, in order to simplify the processing steps of making a device, by using a notoriously well-known and notoriously well-understood method for forming a scintillator (a quick-and-dirty search returned 26 results teaching forming of scintillator by using “direct vapor deposition”; hence, notoriously well-known/well-understood; in other words, it is obvious to do it, because everybody is doing it, and therefore knows well how to do it).
Conclusion
Additional references (if any) are cited on the PTO-892 as disclosing similar features to those of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Belousov whose telephone number is (571)-272-3167. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 am-4 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeff Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Alexander Belousov/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2894
09/25/26
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights