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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 06, 2026, with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections of 1-13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 06, 2026, with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 over Teramoto US 2008/0290523 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 103 rejections over Teramoto US 2008/0290523 of 1-13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed July 06, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding amended independent claims 1, 7, and 13 the applicant argues the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is improper over Yamada WO 2016/031599 in view of Sang KR 2020/0137309 because (1) the adhesive of Yamada is not an “optical clear adhesive sheet” and (2) “the second protection film is thicker than the planarization film” is not mere change of shape because the specification discloses that the thickness of the protection film helps protect the wiring layer from corrosion in the case that the second protection film is cracked. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding argument (1), Yamada discloses that an adhesive is used to bond the scintillator with the upper surface of a protective film (pg. 6 para. 2). It is well known in the art that adhesives are commonly optically clear, and being below the scintillator it would be envisioned that the adhesive be clear to not attenuate the light. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “sheet” is a thin layer, to be considered two-dimensional. It is clear from the figures, for example Yamada figure 7, that the adhesive between the scintillator 20 and the protective layer 15 would be thin and considered two-dimensional, thus a sheet.
Regarding argument (2), a change in size is only sufficient to distinguish over the prior art id it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B.). The Applicant alleges that the increase of thickness increases the structural integrity and water resistance of the device to better protect the wiring layers. It is well known that increasing thickness increases both integrity and water resistance, therefore, this is not an unexpected change and not distinguishing over the prior art.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
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.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada WO 2016/031599 in view of Sang et al. KR 2020/0137309.
Regarding claim 1, Yamada teaches a semiconductor apparatus (figs. 1-13), comprising: a substrate (#11); a wiring layer formed on the substrate (DTL, GTL, BSL; pg. 4 para. 6-7); a first protection film formed so as to cover the wiring layer (#14B); a planarization film formed on the first protection film (#14C); and a second protection film formed on the planarization film (#15), wherein the second protection film is thicker than the planarization film (fig. 2 #15 is thicker than #14C), each of the first protection film and the second protection film is a silicon oxynitride film or a silicon nitride film (pg. 5 para. 3, 5), an optical clear adhesive sheet is provided on the second protection film (pg. 6 para. 2; see Response to Arguments) or the organic film, and a scintillator is provided on the optical clear adhesive sheet (pg. 6 para. 2; see Response to Arguments).
Yamada fails to teach an organic film is formed on the second protection film.
Sang teaches that organic materials have increased adhesion to other organic materials (pg. 7 para. 3, 8) such as an organic scintillator and an organic adhesive layer.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the adhesion layer of Yamada is an organic film as taught by Sang for the purpose of increased adhesion to the scintillator.
Yamada and Sang does not specifically disclose wherein a thickness of each of the first protection film and the second protection film is in a range from 420 nm to 700 nm and a thickness of the organic film is in a range from 1 μm to 3 μm. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to recited range (420 nm to 700 nm and 1 μm to 3 μm) through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention to have wherein a thickness of each of the first protection film and the second protection film is in a range from 420 nm to 700 nm and a thickness of the organic film is in a range from 1 μm to 3 μm in the semiconductor apparatus of Yamada and Sang for the purpose of minimizing device thickness.
Yamada fails to teach wherein the first protection film is thicker than the planarization film. However, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in size has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). A change in size is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of size is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 13, Yamada teaches an X-ray computed tomography apparatus including an X-ray tube configured to emit X-rays and an X-ray detector configured to detect the X-rays emitted by the X-ray tube (pg. 2 para. 2-3; CT machine implies the X-ray tube), wherein the X-ray detector comprises:
a substrate (#11); a wiring layer formed on the substrate (DTL, GTL, BSL; pg. 4 para. 6-7); a first protection film formed so as to cover the wiring layer (#14B); a planarization film formed on the first protection film (#14C); and a second protection film formed on the planarization film (#15), wherein the second protection film is thicker than the planarization film (fig. 2 #15 is thicker than #14C), each of the first protection film and the second protection film is a silicon oxynitride film or a silicon nitride film (pg. 5 para. 3, 5), an optical clear adhesive sheet is provided on the second protection film (pg. 6 para. 2; see Response to Arguments) or the organic film, and a scintillator is provided on the optical clear adhesive sheet (pg. 6 para. 2; see Response to Arguments).
Yamada fails to teach an organic film is formed on the second protection film.
Sang teaches that organic materials have increased adhesion to other organic materials (pg. 7 para. 3, 8) such as an organic scintillator and an organic adhesive layer.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the adhesion layer of Yamada is an organic film as taught by Sang for the purpose of increased adhesion to the scintillator.
Yamada and Sang does not specifically disclose wherein a thickness of each of the first protection film and the second protection film is in a range from 420 nm to 700 nm and a thickness of the organic film is in a range from 1 μm to 3 μm. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to recited range (420 nm to 700 nm and 1 μm to 3 μm) through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention to have wherein a thickness of each of the first protection film and the second protection film is in a range from 420 nm to 700 nm and a thickness of the organic film is in a range from 1 μm to 3 μm in the semiconductor apparatus of Yamada and Sang for the purpose of minimizing device thickness.
Yamada fails to teach wherein the first protection film is thicker than the planarization film. However, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in size has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). A change in size is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of size is not of patentable significance.
Claim 3 and 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada WO 2016/031599 and Sang et al. KR 2020/0137309 in further view of in view of Xu et al. US 2019/0391481.
Yamada discloses claim 3 except that planarization film is a polimide resin (pg. 5 para. 3) instead of a silicon oxide film, Xu shows that low-k dielectric materials for planarization layers, including silicon oxide, can be used interchangeably for a planarization layer (para. 0030). Therefore, because these two planarization films were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a silicon oxide film for a polimide resin.
Yamada, Sang, and Xu does not specifically disclose wherein a thickness of the planarization film is in a range from 100 nm to 400 nm. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to recited range (100 nm to 400 nm) through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention to have wherein a thickness of the planarization film is in a range from 100 nm to 400 nm in the semiconductor apparatus of Yamada, Sang, and Xu for the purpose of minimizing device thickness.
Regarding claim 7, Yamada teaches semiconductor apparatus (figs. 1-13) manufacturing method comprising: forming a wiring layer (DTL, GTL, BSL; pg. 4 para. 6-7) on a semiconductor substrate (#11); forming a first protection film (#14B) on the wiring layer (DTL, GTL, BSL); forming a planarization film (#14C) on the first protection film (#14B); forming a second protection film (#15) on the planarization film (#14C), providing an optical clear adhesive sheet on the second protection film or the organic film (pg. 6 para. 2; see Response to Arguments), and providing a scintillator on the optical clear adhesive sheet (pg. 6 para. 2; see Response to Arguments), wherein each of the first protection film and the second protection film is a silicon nitride film or a silicon oxynitride film (pg. 5 para. 3, 5).
Yamada fails to teach an organic film is formed on the second protection film.
Sang teaches that organic materials have increased adhesion to other organic materials (pg. 7 para. 3, 8) such as an organic scintillator and an organic adhesive layer.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the adhesion layer of Yamada is an organic film as taught by Sang for the purpose of increased adhesion to the scintillator.
Yamada discloses that the planarization film is a polimide resin (pg. 5 para. 3) instead of a silicon oxide film, Xu shows that low-k dielectric materials for planarization layers, including silicon oxide, can be used interchangeably for a planarization layer (para. 0030). Therefore, because these two planarization films were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a silicon oxide film for a polimide resin.
Yamada, Sang, and Xu does not specifically disclose each of the first protection film and the second protection film is formed to have a thickness in a range from 420 nm to 700 nm, the planarization film is formed to have a thickness in a range from 100 nm to 400 nm, and the organic film is formed to have a thickness in a range from 1 um to 3 um. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to recited range (420 nm to 700 nm , 100 nm to 400 nm, and 1 um to 3 um) through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention to have each of the first protection film and the second protection film is formed to have a thickness in a range from 420 nm to 700 nm, the planarization film is formed to have a thickness in a range from 100 nm to 400 nm, and the organic film is formed to have a thickness in a range from 1 um to 3 um in the semiconductor apparatus of Yamada, Sang, and Xu for the purpose of minimizing device thickness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest wherein, prior to the providing of the optical clear adhesive sheet and the scintillator, one of the second protection film and the organic film comes under pressure, along with other claim limitations.
Yamada WO 2016/031599, Sang et al. KR 2020/0137309, and Xu et al. US 2019/0391481, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest "wherein, prior to the providing of the optical clear adhesive sheet and the scintillator, one of the second protection film and the organic film comes under pressure," along with other claim limitations.
Although it is well known in the art that applying pressure to an adhesive improves adhesion, the prior art does not disclose or suggest applying pressure to the surface the adhesive is applied to, prior to applying the adhesive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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 on (571)272-2995. The fax number for the organization where this application or processing 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.
/RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights