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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims 1 – 7 are presented for examination
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 5 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1, Zhang et al. disclose: A manufacturing method of a photoelectric conversion panel, the manufacturing method comprising:
forming a transistor in a pixel region on a substrate; forming a photodiode connected to the transistor in the pixel region (Abstract, para. [0008]);
forming a bias line (fig.3 Bias 1) connected to the photodiode (fig.3 Pin photodiode) in an upper layer above the photodiode (Abstract, para. [0008]);
Huang et al. disclose: forming a short ring surrounding the pixel region in a plan view; forming a plurality of wiring lines short-circuited by the short ring (Abstract, para. [0012]).
Zhang discloses: forming a short ring; forming a plurality of wiring lines short-circuited by the short ring and connected to the transistor or the photodiode and the short ring (claims 1 – 3).
The prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious:
electrically blocking the short ring and the transistor or the photodiode from each other by cutting the plurality of wiring lines after the forming of the bias line; and
forming a first insulating film in a recessed portion created by the plurality of wiring lines being cut.
Claims 2-5 are allowed on the same basis as independent claim 1 for dependency reasons.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 2010/0059804 A1; pub. Mar. 11, 2010) in view of Huang et al. (US 2007/0091218 A1; pub. Apr. 26, 2007) and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2024/0302543 A1; pub. Sep. 12, 2024).
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi et al. disclose: A photoelectric conversion panel comprising:
a transistor formed in a pixel region on a substrate (para. [0002]);
a photodiode formed in the pixel region and connected to the transistor; (para. [0002])
a ring-shaped wiring line (para. [0066]);
a wiring line portion including
a first conductive portion connected to the transistor or the photodiode (para. [0050], [0057]), and
a second conductive portion connected to the ring-shaped wiring line (para. [0066]),
a bias line formed (fig.2 item 16, para. [0108]) in an upper layer above the photodiode and connected to the photodiode.
Hayashi et al. are silent about:
a ring-shaped wiring line surrounding the pixel region in a plan view;
the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion being electrically blocked from each other
a first insulating film formed in an upper layer above the bias line with at least a portion being formed between the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion, the first insulating film being configured to insulate the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion.
In a similar filed of endeavor Huang et al. disclose: a ring-shaped wiring line surrounding the pixel region in a plan view (abstract, para. [0012]) motivated by the benefits for a good quality photoelectric conversion device with better electrostatic discharge protection (Huang et al. para. [0010]).
In light of the benefits for a good quality photoelectric conversion device with better electrostatic discharge protection as taught by Huang et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ring-shaped wiring of Huang et al. in the photoelectric conversion device of Hayashi et al.
Huang et al. are silent about: the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion being electrically blocked from each other, a first insulating film formed in an upper layer above the bias line with at least a portion being formed between the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion, the first insulating film being configured to insulate the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion.
In a similar filed of endeavor Zhang et al. disclose: the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion being electrically blocked from each other (para. [0046]), a first insulating film formed in an upper layer above the bias line with at least a portion being formed between the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion, the first insulating film being configured to insulate the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion (para. [0046]) motivated by the benefits for preventing signal cross-talk while improving signal conductivity.
In light of the benefits for preventing signal cross-talk while improving signal conductivity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the insulating film of Huang et al. in the photoelectric conversion device of Hayashi et al. and Huang et al.
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi et al., Huang et al. and Zhang et al. disclose: An X-ray imaging panel comprising:
a transistor formed in a pixel region on a substrate;
a photodiode formed in the pixel region and connected to the transistor;
a ring-shaped wiring line surrounding the pixel region in a plan view;
a wiring line portion including
a first portion connected to the transistor or the photodiode, and
a second portion connected to the ring-shaped wiring line, the first portion and the second portion being electrically blocked from each other;
a bias line formed in an upper layer above the photodiode and connected to the photodiode;
a first insulating film formed in an upper layer above the bias line with at least a portion being formed between the first portion and the second portion, the first insulating film being configured to insulate the first portion and the second portion; and
a scintillator covering the pixel region (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 6, especially Hayashi et al. teach a scintillator covering the pixel region (para. [0073]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9AM-6PM.
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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884