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 .
Specification
1. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
2. Claims 1-10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jia et al. (CN 111668320 A, English translation provided with IDS 12/14/2023)
Re claim 1, Jia teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1-2, abstract, [0030-0041], a semiconductor radiation detector, comprising:
-a semiconductor block (Si substrate 11) of a first conductivity type (e.g., N-type doped) and comprising majority charge carriers of a first polarity (e.g., N-type);
-an electrode arrangement (collector electrode 13, drift electrode 14) embedded on one or more surfaces of the semiconductor block (11), the electrode arrangement comprising at least one collector electrode (13) embedded on a front surface (e.g., with passivation film) of the semiconductor block (11) and one or more further electrodes (14) that are arranged to generate (*) (as intended use) an electric field within the semiconductor block (11) for driving (*) charge carriers of the first polarity generated therein due to incident radiation towards the at least one collector electrode (13);
-a radiation entrance window (incident window electrode 17) for receiving (*) the incident radiation, the radiation entrance window (17) arranged to cover at least portion of a back surface of the semiconductor block (11) that is opposite to its front surface; and
-an arrangement of one or more layers (of layer 12) having a net charge of the first polarity, said arrangement of one or more layers (12) arranged to substantially cover at least one side surface of the semiconductor block (11) to induce (*) an electric field for passivating said at least one side surface of the semiconductor block (11) so as to reduce (*) leakage currents arising therein.
PNG
media_image1.png
233
683
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(*) The limitation “…to generate an electric field”, “…for driving charge carriers…”, “for receiving the incident radiation”, “to induce an electric field…” & “…to reduce leakage current…” are merely a functional/intended use limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior arts. While features of a device may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a device must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed.Cir.1997). Further, the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional/intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114. Additionally, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Re claim 2, Jia teaches, Fig. 1, wherein said arrangement of one or more layers (12) extends to cover said at least a portion of the back surface of the semiconductor block (11) to provide said radiation entrance window (17), said arrangement of one or more layers (12) thereby inducing (*) an electric field within the semiconductor block (11) for driving (*) the charge carriers of the first polarity generated therein due to the incident radiation from the back surface towards the at least one collector electrode (13).
Re claims 3 & 4, Jia teaches wherein said arrangement of one or more layers (12) includes a dielectric layer (e.g., aluminum oxide or silicon oxide, [0038]) having a charge of the first polarity; wherein the first polarity is n type (e.g. based on selected material).
Re claim 5, Jia teaches wherein said dielectric layer comprises a layer made of one of the following:
aluminum oxide (Al2O3) (122, [0038]),
lanthanum oxide (La2O3),
hafnium oxide (HfO2),
aluminum nitride (AlN),
titanium oxide (TiOx),
tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5),
amorphous boron.
Re claim 6, Jia teaches wherein the first polarity is p type (e.g., based on P-type silicon based-film [0022, 0023]).
Re claim 7, Jia teaches wherein said dielectric layer comprises one of the following:
zirconium dioxide (ZrO2),
silicon dioxide (SiO2) (123, [0038]),
lanthanum oxide (La2O3),
silicon nitride (SiNx),
a phosphorus oxide - aluminum oxide stack (POx/A1203).
Re claim 8, Jia teaches, Fig. 1, wherein the back surface of the semiconductor block (11) is substantially planar (consider 11 itself).
Re claims 9 & 10, Jia teaches, under BRI, Fig. 1, wherein the back surface of the semiconductor block (11) is substantially no-planar (consider 11 with electrodes); wherein the back surface of the semiconductor block has a convex, concave or pyramidical shape (e.g., formed by arrangement of electrodes).
Re claim 13, Jia teaches, Figs. 1-2, a passivation layer (123 of layer 12) arranged to cover at least some of those portions of the front and back surfaces of the semiconductor block (11) that are not covered by the arrangement of one or more layers (e.g., 121 of layer 12).
Re claim 14, Jia teaches, under BRI, Fig. 1, [0036], a silicon drift detector (Fig. 1), wherein the electrode arrangement (13, 14) comprises: a collector electrode (13) and a set of nested field electrodes (consider surrounding electrode 14 or doped ring 15) embedded on the front surface of the semiconductor block (11) such that they surround the collector electrode (13), wherein the field electrodes (14 or 15) are arranged to generate (*) (as intended use), when biased to respective electric potentials of increasing magnitude from the innermost one towards the outermost one of the field electrodes (14 or 13), an electric field within the semiconductor block (101) for driving (*) charge carriers of the first polarity generated therein due to incident radiation towards the collector electrode (13).
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.
3. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia in view of Homme et al. (US 2003/0001101).
The teachings of Jia have been discussed above.
Re claim 11, Jia does not explicitly teach wherein said at least one side surface of the semiconductor block (covered by layer 12) connects said front surface to said back surface.
Homme teaches, Fig. 1, said at least one side surface of the semiconductor block (covered by layer 18) connects said front surface to said back surface (of substrate 10).
As taught by Homme, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain said at least one side surface of the semiconductor block (being covered by a layer) connects said front surface to said back surface as claimed, because it aids in improving the sealing & protection to surfaces of a substrate.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Homme in combination Jia due to above reason.
4. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia in view of Modawar et al. (US 2012/0153251).
The teachings of Jia have been discussed above.
Re claim 12, Jia does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the following applies: the back surface of the semiconductor block comprises black silicon, the at least one side of surface of the semiconductor block comprises black silicon.
Modawar teaches substrate having section of black silicon [0025].
As taught by Modawar, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain black silicon as claimed, because black silicon is known in the art as low reflectivity & lower cost material. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Modawar in combination Jia due to above reason.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 4/17/26
Prosecution Insights