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
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it lacks clarity. The abstract appears to be a collection of statements separated by “for example”. These appear to indicate multiple embodiments, with each sentence being a single embodiment. The disclosure supports a single embodiment of the invention. The Examiner suggests to remove “For example” from each sentence of the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “ionizing radiation” in line 2 has unclear antecedent basis and should be corrected to an ionizing radiation.
In line 8, “based on detected ionized radiation detected by” should be replaced with based on the ionizing radiation detected by.
Regarding claim 2, “Float-Zone (FZ) silicon” should be a Float-Zone (FZ) silicon.
Regarding claim 3, “fully-depleted silicon should be a fully-depleted silicon.
Regarding claim 24, In line 8, “based on detected ionized radiation detected by” should be replaced with based on the ionizing radiation detected by.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high-resistance” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-resistance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The application does not mention what resistance is considered to be high-resistance
For the purpose of examination, CZ-Si is assumed to be high-resistance.
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, 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 1, 6-8, 10-12, 15, 17, 19-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Känel, U.S. Pat. 11,367,747, hereafter ‘747, in view of Derzon et. al., U.S. Pat. 10,620,326, hereafter ‘326.
Regarding claim 1,’747 discloses (Fig. 2A, Col. 9, lines 14-18, 50-58) an apparatus comprising:
a radiation detector configured to detect ionizing radiation, the radiation detector comprising a bonded die comprising a plurality of active pixel sensors configured to sense the ionizing radiation, the bonded die comprising:
a detection die [104] comprising a plurality of detection diodes [112],[114], wherein an active pixel sensor of the plurality of active pixel sensors comprises a detection diode of the plurality of detection diodes to generate an electric detection signal based on detected ionized radiation detected by the detection diode; and
an electronic-circuitry die [102] bonded to the detection die [104], wherein a thickness of the electronic-circuitry die [102] (e.g., 3-5 um, Col. 9, lines 21-23) is less than 4 percent of a thickness of the detection die (e.g., 2330 um, Col. 8, line 25, the limitation is obvious over ‘747, because ‘747 discloses an overlapping range, MPEP, Latest Edition, 2144.05.I; furthermore, since X-ray detector thickness has established criticality, the value can be optimized, MPEP, 2144.05.II.A, and case law therein), the electronic-circuitry die [102] comprising a plurality of transistors [115].
‘747 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the active pixel sensor comprises one or more transistors of the plurality of transistors to amplify the electronic detection signal.
However, ‘326 discloses (Col. 9, lines 46-49) wherein the active pixel sensor comprises one or more transistors of the plurality of transistors to amplify the electronic detection signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify X-ray detector of ‘747 with the teachings of on-pixel preamplifier of ‘326,
because ‘326 teaches (Col. 9, lines 54-67) that implementing such closely geometrically coupled circuitry leads to an improvement in sensitivity.
Regarding claim 6, ‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘747 further discloses (Fig. 2A, [115], Col. 9, lines 23-24, see also Fig. 1A explicitly showing p-MOS and n-MOS transistors) wherein the electronic-circuitry die comprises a Complementary Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor (MOS) (CMOS) die comprising a plurality of MOS transistors.
Regarding claim 7, ‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘747 further discloses (Fig. 2A, Col. 9, lines 25-30) comprising a bonding layer [108] to bond the electronic-circuitry die [102] and the detection die [104].
Regarding claim 8, ‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘747 further discloses (Col. 22, lines 14-19) wherein the bonding layer comprises a fusion bonding layer to fuse a dielectric layer of the electronic-circuitry die [102] with a dielectric layer of the detection die [104].
Regarding claim 10, ‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘747 further discloses (Fig. 2A) wherein the bonding layer comprises a plurality of vias [110] to connect the plurality of detection diodes to the plurality of transistors.
Regarding claim 11,‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘326 further discloses (Fig. 4, Col. 7, lines 21-35) wherein the radiation detector comprises a plurality of stacked bonded dies to detect the ionizing radiation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the design of ionizing detector of ‘747 with vertical stacking taught by ‘326, because ‘326 teaches (Col. 5, line 26) that this improves efficiency of absorber.
Regarding claim 12, ‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘326 further discloses (Fig. 6, Col. 8, lines 62-63) wherein the plurality of stacked bonded dies comprises a plurality of connection pads, wherein a connection pad of a stacked bonded die comprising the bonded die is configured to provide a plurality of amplified detection signals from the plurality of active pixels.
Regarding claim 13, ‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘747 in view of ‘326 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of connection pads are arranged in a cascaded arrangement.
Regarding claim 15, ‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above.
‘326 further discloses (Fig. 7, Col. 9, lines 38-45)
wherein the plurality of stacked bonded dies comprises a connection interface on an external stacked bonded die, and a plurality of Through-Silicon Vias (TSVs) [730] to connect between the connection interface and transistors of the plurality of stacked bonded dies
Regarding claim 17, ‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘747 further makes obvious (Fig. 2A) wherein the thickness of the electronic-circuitry die [102] (e.g., 3-5 um, Col. 9, lines 21-23) is no more than 3 percent of the thickness of the detection die (e.g., 2330 um, Col. 8, line 25, the limitation is obvious over ‘747, because ‘747 discloses an overlapping range, MPEP, Latest Edition, 2144.05.I; furthermore, since X-ray detector thickness has established criticality, the value can be optimized, MPEP, 2144.05.II.A, and case law therein).
Regarding claim 19, ‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘747 further discloses (Fig. 2A)
wherein the thickness of the electronic-circuitry die [102] is no more than 15 micrometer (um). die [102] (e.g., 3-5 um, Col. 9, lines 21-23).
Regarding claim 20, ‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘747 further discloses (Fig. 2A)
wherein the thickness of the electronic-circuitry die [102] is no more than 5 micrometer (um)
(e.g., 3-5 um, Col. 9, lines 21-23).
Regarding claim 22, ‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘747 further discloses (Col. 4, lines 60-67) wherein the radiation detector comprises a Monolithic Active Pixel Sensor (MAPS).
Regarding claim 23, ‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘326 further discloses (Fig. 2A, Fig. 4, Col.3, lines 58-60, Col. 4, lines 6-8) wherein the radiation detector comprises a three dimensional (3D) Monolithic Active Pixel Sensor (MAPS) comprising a plurality of stacked bonded dies to detect the ionizing radiation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify X-ray detector of ‘747 with the teachings of 3D pixel array of ‘326,
because ‘326 teaches (Col. 9, lines 54-67) that implementing such closely geometrically coupled circuitry leads to an improvement in sensitivity.
Claims 2 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Känel, U.S. Pat. 11,367,747, hereafter ‘747, in view of Derzon et. al., U.S. Pat. 10,620,326, hereafter ‘326, and further in view of Sanders et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2008/0290433, hereafter ‘433.
Regarding claim 2, ‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘747 in view of ‘326 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the detection die comprises Float-Zone (FZ) silicon.
However, ‘433 discloses (par. [0031]) wherein the detection die comprises Float-Zone (FZ) silicon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to use high-resistive Float-Zone silicon as an absorber material for the radiation absorber of ‘326 because FZ silicon was a known radiation detector material providing the high-resistivity volume needed for charge generation and collection.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima
facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65
USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (MPEP, latest Edition, 2144.07, and case law therein).
Regarding claim 21, ‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘747 in view of ‘326 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the detection diode comprises a P-type- Intrinsic-region-N-type (PIN) diode.
However, ‘433 discloses (Fig. 10, par. [0025]) wherein the detection diode comprises a P-type- Intrinsic-region-N-type (PIN) diode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to use PIN diode of ‘433 as a radiation detector because ‘433 teaches (par. [0008]):
The most common topologies used for detecting the transient gamma radiation associated with a nuclear event utilize PIN diodes to detect the rising gamma radiation. PIN diodes are well known in the electrical arts and are often used as radiation detectors and photo detectors. A PIN diode is generally a diode with a wide, lightly doped `near` intrinsic semiconductor region between a p-type semiconductor and an n-type semiconductor regions. Such diodes experience a detectable change in current under bias as the level of gamma radiation rises.
Claims 3, 18, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Känel, U.S. Pat. 11,367,747, hereafter ‘747, in view of Derzon et. al., U.S. Pat. 10,620,326, hereafter ‘326, and further in view of Holland, U.S. Pat. 6,259,085, hereafter Holland.
Regarding claim 3, ‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘747 in view of ‘326 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the detection die comprises fully-depleted silicon.
However, Holland discloses (abstract) wherein the detection die comprises fully-depleted silicon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify the detector of ‘747 with the teachings of Holland because Holland teaches (claim 1) that such full depletion is used to create a drift electric field in the volume of the substrate to provide for transport of signal charge carriers produced in the substrate by incident radiation to the buried channel regions.
Regarding claim 18, ‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘747 in view of ‘326 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the thickness of the detection die is at least 600 micrometer (um).
However, this range is obvious over Holland (Col. 2, lines 58-65), who discloses an overlapping range of thickness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to use thickness of detection volume of Holland in the radiation detector of ;747, because Holland teaches (abstract, claim 1) that this detection volume to detect electromagnetic radiation and charged particles.
Regarding claim 24, ’747 discloses (Fig. 2A, Col. 9, lines 14-18, 50-58) an apparatus comprising:
a radiation detector configured to detect ionizing radiation, the radiation detector comprising a bonded die comprising a plurality of active pixel sensors configured to sense the ionizing radiation, the bonded die comprising:
a detection die [104] comprising a plurality of detection diodes [112],[114], wherein an active pixel sensor of the plurality of active pixel sensors comprises a detection diode of the plurality of detection diodes to generate an electric detection signal based on detected ionized radiation detected by the detection diode; and
an electronic-circuitry die [102] bonded to the detection die [104], wherein a thickness of the electronic-circuitry die [102] (e.g., 3-5 um, Col. 9, lines 21-23) is less than 4 percent of a thickness of the detection die (e.g., 2330 um, Col. 8, line 25, the limitation is obvious over ‘747, because ‘747 discloses an overlapping range, MPEP, Latest Edition, 2144.05.I; furthermore, since X-ray detector thickness has established criticality, the value can be optimized, MPEP, 2144.05.II.A, and case law therein), the electronic-circuitry die [102] comprising a plurality of transistors [115].
‘747 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the active pixel sensor comprises one or more transistors of the plurality of transistors to amplify the electronic detection signal.
However, ‘326 discloses (Col. 9, lines 46-49) wherein the active pixel sensor comprises one or more transistors of the plurality of transistors to amplify the electronic detection signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify X-ray detector of ‘747 with the teachings of on-pixel preamplifier of ‘326, because ‘326 teaches (Col. 9, lines 54-67) that implementing such closely geometrically coupled circuitry leads to an improvement in sensitivity.
‘747 in view of ‘326 fails to explicitly disclose further comprising:
a processor to generate radiation information based on electronic detection signals from the radiation detector; and
a memory to store information processed by the processor.
However, Holland discloses (Fig. 4, Col. 4, lines 26-36) further comprising (a computer [48] has a processor and a memory):
a processor to generate radiation information based on electronic detection signals from the radiation detector; and
a memory to store information processed by the processor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective date of the instant application to modify ‘747 in view of ‘326 with the teachings of a processor and a memory of Holland, because a computer of holland is a necessary component to process data generated by the detector.
Regarding claim 25, ‘747 in view of ‘326 in view of Holland discloses everything as applied above. ‘326 further discloses (Figs. 4, 6, Col. 2,line 62-Col.3, line 7) wherein the radiation detector comprises a plurality of stacked bonded dies to detect the ionizing radiation.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Känel, U.S. Pat. 11,367,747, hereafter ‘747, in view of Derzon et. al., U.S. Pat. 10,620,326, hereafter ‘326, and further in view of Harkonen et. al., “Particle detectors made of high-resistivity Czochralski silicon”, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 541, pp. 202-207 (2005), hereafter CZ.
Regarding claim 4, ‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘747 in view of ‘326 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the detection die comprises a Czochralski silicon die. However, CZ discloses (abstract) wherein the detection die comprises a Czochralski silicon die.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective date of the instant application to use CZ-Si die in the detection die because CZ teaches (abstract) Cz-Si was found to be more radiation hard than standard Float Zone silicon (Fz-Si) or oxygenated Fz-Si
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima
facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65
USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (MPEP, latest Edition, 2144.07, and case law therein).
Regarding claim 5, ‘747 in view of ‘326 in view of CZ discloses everything as applied above. CZ further discloses (abstract) wherein the detection die comprises a high-resistance Czochralski silicon die (the resistivity in the abstract is assumed to be high-resistance, for the lack of proper definition).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Känel, U.S. Pat. 11,367,747, hereafter ‘747, in view of Derzon et. al., U.S. Pat. 10,620,326, hereafter ‘326, and further in view of Wan et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2014/0042298, hereafter Wan.
Regarding claim 9, ‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘747 in view of ‘326 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the bonding layer comprises a hybrid bonding layer to bond dielectric regions and metal vias of the electronic-circuitry die with corresponding dielectric regions and metal vias of the detection die.
However, Wan discloses (Fig. 4, par. [0021]) wherein the bonding layer comprises a hybrid bonding layer to bond dielectric regions [36] and metal vias [40], [140] of the electronic-circuitry die [100] with corresponding dielectric regions and metal vias of the detection die [20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to use hybrid bonding of Wan for due bonding of ‘747 because hybrid bonding securely bonds both metal and dielectric surfaces, and ‘326 already teaches (Col. 22, lines 14-19) fusion bonding of dielectric surfaces. Metallic interconnects of Wan lowers resistivity of semiconductor TSVs of ‘747, while hybrid bonding of metal and dielectric surfaces of Wan is a natural extension of fusion bonding of ‘747.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Känel, U.S. Pat. 11,367,747, hereafter ‘747, in view of Derzon et. al., U.S. Pat. 10,620,326, hereafter ‘326, and further in view of Liao et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2013/0207280, hereafter Liao.
Regarding claim 13, ‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘747 in view of ‘326 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of connection pads are arranged in a cascaded arrangement.
However, Liao discloses (Figs 11,12) wherein the plurality of connection pads [104] are arranged in a cascaded arrangement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify arrangement of pads to cascaded arrangement so that all pads are easily reached.
Regarding claim 14, ‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘747 in view of ‘326 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of stacked bonded dies comprises a plurality of spaces between the plurality of connection pads.
However, Liao discloses (Figs 11,12) wherein the plurality of stacked bonded dies [102] comprises a plurality of spaces between the plurality of connection pads [104].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify the detector of ‘747 with the teachings of spaced connection pads of Liao because such a spacing is necessary to avoid a short circuit.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Känel, U.S. Pat. 11,367,747, hereafter ‘747, in view of Derzon et. al., U.S. Pat. 10,620,326, hereafter ‘326, and further in view of Zhang et. al., U.S. Pat. 8,569,899, hereafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 16,‘747 in view of ‘326 discloses everything as applied above. ‘747 in view of ‘326 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of TSVs comprises a plurality of alignment TSVs to align stacking of the plurality of stacked bonded dies.
However, Zhang discloses (Fig. 3) wherein the plurality of TSVs [112] comprises a plurality of alignment TSVs [112] to align stacking of the plurality of stacked bonded dies [102].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify the detector dies of ‘747 with the teachings of alignment TSVs of Zhang, because Zhang teaches (Col. 2, lines 19-24) that such TSV alignment aligns stacked dies precisely.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR V BARZYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, BRITT HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/VICTOR V BARZYKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights