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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Invention I and Species A directed to Figs. 4-7 (Claims 1-3 and 6-8) in the reply filed on February 29th, 2012 is acknowledged.
Claims 4, 7-10, and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 29th, 2012.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the photodiodes” in line 8 referring back to “a plurality of photodiodes” in line 3 and should be amended to “the plurality of photodiodes” for avoiding confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “the respective photodiodes” in line 4 referring back to “a plurality of photodiodes” in line 3 of claim 1 and should be amended to “the respective plurality of photodiodes” for avoiding confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “the respective sensor pixels” in line 6-7 referring back to “a plurality of sensor pixels” in line 2 and should be amended to “the respective plurality of sensor pixels” for avoiding confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “the openings” in line 2 referring back to “a plurality of openings” in line 9 of claim 1 and should be amended to “the plurality of openings” for avoiding confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites “the openings” in line 2 referring back to “a plurality of openings” in line 9 of claim 1 and should be amended to “the plurality of openings” for avoiding confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “the openings” in line 2 referring back to “a plurality of openings” in line 9 of claim 1 and should be amended to “the plurality of openings” for avoiding confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0367582 A1), hereinafter as Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a detection device in Figs. 3, 6 and 9 comprising: a substrate (substrate 10) (see [0070]); a plurality of photodiodes (a plurality of sensors 11), in each of which a lower electrode (conductive pattern SD2), a lower buffer layer (layer 1111), an active layer (layer 1112), an upper buffer layer (layer 1113), and an upper electrode (electrode 112) are stacked in the order as listed, in a detection region of the substrate (a region having sensor 11) (see Figs. 3, 6 and 9 and [0076-0077], [0080-0082], [0088]); and a protective film (planarization layer 14) that covers the photodiodes, wherein the protective film has a plurality of openings (plurality of holes K1) in the detection region (see Fig. 9 and [0091], [0128]).
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses the detection device according to claim 1, further comprising a plurality of sensor pixels (plurality of pixel regions P) that are arranged in a matrix having a row-column configuration in the detection region and have the respective photodiodes (each pixel region P has sensor 11) (see Fig. 3 and [0062-0063], [0077]), wherein the openings (holes K1) are provided in regions overlapping the respective sensor pixels and are arranged in a matrix having a row-column configuration in the detection region (see Figs. 3, 9-11 and [0093]).
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses the detection device according to claim 1, wherein areas of the openings are substantially equal (see Fig. 11 and [0122]).
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses the detection device according to claim 1, wherein each of the openings overlaps the lower buffer layer (see Figs. 9-11).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0367582 A1), hereinafter as Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MISAKI (Pub. No.: US 2019/0187309 A1), hereinafter as MISAKI
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses the detection device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein each of the openings is provided in a region surrounded by gate lines and signal lines.
MISAKI discloses a detection device in Fig. 2-3 comprising a plurality of sensor pixels (plurality of photodiode 12) and each sensor pixel is provided in a region surrounded by gate lines (gate lines 11) and signal lines (bias line 16/source line10).
Modifying each of the plurality of sensor pixels of Wang to be surrounded by the gate lines and signal lines as same as the detection device of MISAKI for making each of the openings is provided in a region surrounded by gate lines and signal lines as recited in claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify each of the plurality of sensor pixels of Wang to be surrounded by the gate lines and signal lines as same as the detection device of MISAKI for making each of the openings because the modified structure would provide a minimal pixel pitch and higher density for achieving high resolutions imaging in application.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0367582 A1), hereinafter as Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LEE et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0245008 A1), hereinafter as MISAKI
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses the detection device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the protective film comprises both an inorganic insulating film and an organic insulating film.
LEE discloses a detection device comprising a protective film (planarization layer 320) comprises both an inorganic insulating film and an organic insulating film (Fig. 2 and [0126]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the protective film of Wang to be made of both inorganic and organic insulating films as same as the detection device of LEE because the modified structure would improve thermal stress and moisture protection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CUONG B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1509 (Email: CuongB.Nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.
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, Steven H. Loke can be reached on (571) 272-1657. 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.
/CUONG B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights