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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakaguchi (US 20190140002 A1; May 5, 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Sakaguchi teaches a radiation detector (Figures 1A-1C; Paragraph 26 - As illustrated in FIG. 1A, the detector IC has a detection region 10 for detecting an energy ray, and a peripheral region 20 located around the detection region 10 in a plan view with respect to the detection region 10.), comprising:
a semiconductor layer (Figure 1B Element 100; Paragraph 28 - As illustrated in FIG. 1B, the detector IC includes the semiconductor layer 100 which includes the detection region 10 and the peripheral region 20) including a detection region (Figure 1B Element 10) provided with a radiation detection element and a peripheral region (Figure 1B element 20) provided outside the detection region;
a first support member (Figure 1B Element 210; Paragraph 35 - The peripheral region 20 includes a support unit 210 for supporting the semiconductor layer 100 in the peripheral region 20.) configured to support at least a part of the peripheral region in a surface of the semiconductor layer on a side opposite to an incident surface on which a radiation is incident (Seen in Figure 1B; Paragraph 35); and
a second support member (Figure 11 Element 43; The package PKG further includes an internal terminal 41, an external terminal 42, and binders 43 and 44.) configured to support a part of the first support member from a side opposite to the semiconductor layer (Seen in Figure 11),
wherein in a case where a point at which a side surface on a side of the detection region and a lower surface of the first support member intersect each other is defined as EP1 (Figure 11 Lower right point of Element 210 (Left element) or Lower left point of Element 210 (Right element)), and
a point at which a side surface on the side of the detection region and a lower surface of the second support member intersect each other is defined as EP2 (Figure 11 Lower right point of Element 43 (Left element) or Lower left point of Element 43 (Right element)), and
in a case where the radiation detector is seen through from a direction orthogonal to the incident surface, the EP1 is spaced apart from a boundary between the detection region and the peripheral region by a first distance (Seen in Figure 5A Spacing between vertical line between Elements 20 and 10 and the designated EP1 point), and the EP2 is spaced apart from the boundary between the detection region and the peripheral region by a second distance larger than the first distance (Seen in Figure 11 – horizontal distance between the detection region and the designated EP2 point).
PNG
media_image1.png
410
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
527
667
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Sakaguchi teaches the radiation detector according to claim 1. Sakaguchi further teaches wherein in a case where the radiation detector is seen through from the direction orthogonal to the incident surface, a first region in which the semiconductor layer does not overlap any of the first support member (Seen in Figure 5A – the space where the arrow is pointing) and the second support member is provided on a side of the peripheral region adjacent to the boundary between the detection region and the peripheral region (Seen in Figure 11 above).
Regarding claim 4, Sakaguchi teaches the radiation detector according to claim 3. Sakaguchi further teaches wherein in a case where the radiation detector is seen through from the direction orthogonal to the incident surface, a second region (Seen in Figure 11 above- horizontal space between the vertical lines) in which the semiconductor layer overlaps the first support member but does not overlap the second support member is provided outside the first region (Seen in Figure 11 above- horizontal space between the vertical lines).
Regarding claim 5, Sakaguchi teaches the radiation detector according to claim 4. Sakaguchi further teaches wherein in a case where the radiation detector is seen through from the direction orthogonal to the incident surface, a third region in which the semiconductor layer overlaps the first support member and the second support member is provided outside the second region (Seen in Figure 11 – portion of the semiconductor 100 where Elements 210 and 43 overlap).
Regarding claim 6, Sakaguchi teaches the radiation detector according to claim 4. Sakaguchi further teaches wherein in a case where the radiation detector is seen through from the direction orthogonal to the incident surface, a width of the first region is the first distance, and a width of the second region is the second distance (Inherent as this is just naming of those spaces defined in the claims above).
Regarding claim 11, Sakaguchi teaches the radiation detector according to claim 1. Sakaguchi further discloses wherein the semiconductor layer is provided with a signal processing circuit (Figure 1A Element 24) in the peripheral region (Paragraph 41- As illustrated in FIG. 1A, the peripheral region 20 is provided with a drive circuit 21, a control circuit 22, an input terminal portion 23, a signal processing circuit 24, an output circuit 25, and an output terminal portion 26.).
Regarding claim 12, Sakaguchi teaches the radiation detector according to claim 1. Sakaguichi further teaches wherein the semiconductor layer and the first support member are connected to each other via an adhesive layer (Figure 4B Element 224; Paragraph 48 - The intermediate layer 220 includes the insulator layer 221 and the conductor layer 222 as in the second example embodiment, and further includes an adhesion layer 224.).
Regarding claim 14, Sakaguchi teaches a radiation imaging system, comprising: the radiation detector according to claim 1. Sakaguchi further teaches a signal processing unit configured to process a signal output from the radiation detector (Paragraph 69 - A signal processor 1016 and an image processor 1018 provided as the processor PRCS process an output signal from the detector IC).
Regarding claim 15, Sakaguchi teaches a radiation imaging system, comprising: the radiation detector according to claim 1. Sakaguchi further teaches a radiation source (Paragraph 65- The energy source is, for example, a light source, an electron source, or a radiation source.).
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi (US 20190140002 A1; May 5, 2019).
Regarding claim 2, Sakaguchi teaches the radiation detector according to claim 1. Sakaguchi teaches wherein in a case where the first distance is set as X1 (Seen above in Figure 5A), the second distance is set as X2 (Seen below in Figure 11), a distance between the surface of the semiconductor layer on a side opposite to the incident surface and the EP1 is set as Z1 (Seen below in Figure 11 Element Z1), and a distance between the surface of the semiconductor layer on a side opposite to the incident surface and the EP2 is set as Z2 (Seen below in Figure 11 Element Z1).
PNG
media_image3.png
708
810
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sakaguchi does not teach relationships of Z1 < X1/tan (10°) and Z2 < X2/tan (10°) are satisfied. However, since the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation in order to ensure the device is designed to the desired specifications to achieve optimal detection.
Regarding claim 13, Sakaguchi teaches the radiation detector according to claim 1. Sakaguchi teaches an adhesion layer between the semiconductor layer and the support layer (Figure 4B Element 224).
Sakaguchi does not explicitly teach wherein the first support member and the second support member are connected to each other via an adhesive layer.
However, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to further specify wherein the first support member and the second support member are connected to each other via an adhesive layer since the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), which would allow for increased strength and stability of the semiconductor detection device.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi (US 20190140002 A1; May 5, 2019) in view of Toyoda (US 20010040248 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Sakaguchi teaches the radiation detector according to claim 1. Sakaguchi does not teach wherein in a cross section in the direction orthogonal to the incident surface, an end portion of the first support member includes a first inclined surface inclined with respect to the direction orthogonal to the incident surface
the first inclined surface is inclined in a direction away from the boundary between the detection region and the peripheral region as being spaced apart from the semiconductor layer.
Toyoda teaches wherein in a cross section in the direction orthogonal to the incident surface (As seen in Figure 2), an end portion of the first support member includes a first inclined surface inclined with respect to the direction orthogonal to the incident surface (Figure 2 Element 10; Seen in Figure 2)
and the first inclined surface is inclined in a direction away from the boundary between the detection region and the peripheral region as being spaced apart from the semiconductor layer (Seen in Figure 2 Element 10 angled).
Therefore, from the teaching of Toyoda, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation in order allow for increased scattering of the incoming radiation.
Regarding claim 8, Sakaguchi in view of Toyoda teaches the radiation detector according to claim 7, but fails to teach wherein the first inclined surface is inclined by an angle larger than 10° with respect to the direction orthogonal to the incident surface.
However it would have been obvious to specify the abovementioned limitation since the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to specify the abovementioned limitation in order to achieve desired design characteristic.
Regarding claim 9, Sakaguchi teaches the radiation detector according to claim 1. Sakaguichi teaches a second support (Figure 11 Element 43) but fails to teach wherein in a cross section in the direction orthogonal to the incident surface, an end portion of the second support member includes a second inclined surface inclined with respect to the direction orthogonal to the incident surface, and the second inclined surface is inclined in a direction away from the boundary between the detection region and the peripheral region as being spaced apart from the semiconductor layer.
Toyoda teaches wherein in a cross section in the direction orthogonal to the incident surface, an end portion of the support member includes a inclined surface inclined with respect to the direction orthogonal to the incident surface, and the second inclined surface is inclined in a direction away from the boundary between the detection region and the peripheral region as being spaced apart from the semiconductor layer (Seen in Figure 2 Element 10 angled).
Sakaguich in view of Toyoda does not explicitly teach that in a cross section in the direction orthogonal to the incident surface, an end portion of the second support member includes an inclined surface inclined with respect to the direction orthogonal to the incident surface, and the second inclined surface is inclined in a direction away from the boundary between the detection region and the peripheral region as being spaced apart from the semiconductor layer.
However, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation to specify the abovementioned limitation in order to allow for both first and second supports to be inclined in order to allow for maximum scattering of the incident radiation.
Regarding claim 10, Sakaguchi in view of Toyoda teaches the radiation detector according to claim 9, but fails to teach wherein the second inclined surface is inclined by an angle larger than 10° with respect to the direction orthogonal to the incident surface.
However, it would have been obvious to specify the abovementioned limitation since the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to specify the abovementioned limitation in order to achieve desired design characteristic which allow of increased scattering of incident radiation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- US 20070205480 A1 teaches a semiconductor device with supports.
- US 20230371910 A1 teaches a radiation detection with a semiconductor layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISSELLE GUTIERREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/GISSELLE GUTIERREZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights