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 .
Status of claims
Claims 1-16, 34-44 withdraw.
Claims 18-30 cancelled
Claim 17 amended.
Claims 31-33 original.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 3, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Improper Claim Amendment 1.121(c )
Regarding claim 17. Claim 17 has improper claim amendment.
Claim 17 marked (previously presented) is incorrect. Applicant has amended claim 17.
Claim 17 should be marked “Claim 17 (currently amended).
See MPEP 1.121(c)(2)
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of "currently amended," and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of "currently amended," or "withdrawn" if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as "withdrawn— currently amended."
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 17, 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification ([0007]), while being enabling for the W-type type II superlattice comprises AlSb/InAs/InGaSb/InAs, does not reasonably provide enablement for all detectors including a cascaded W-Type type II superlattice for detecting infrared radiation wherein the detector has a specific detectivity and a responsivity wherein the detector has a specific detectivity and a responsivity and the detector has at least a 60% increase in the specific detectivity for the responsivity when compared to an InAs/GaSb superlattice detector. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Regarding claim 17. Claim 17 is not enable for W-type type II superlattice materials that do not comprise AlSb/InAs/InGaSb/InAs . Claim 17 is not enabling for all materials that can make up a W-Type type II superlattice for detecting infrared radiation. Applicant has not disclosed any materials for W-Type type II superlattice for detecting infrared radiation other than AlSb/InAs/InGaSb/InAs.
Claims 31-33 rejected for dependence upon a 112(a) rejected instance claim.
Claims 17, 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17. Claim 17 recites the limitation “An apparatus comprising a detector including a cascaded W-Type type II superlattice for detecting infrared radiation wherein the detector has a specific detectivity and a responsivity and the detector has at least a 60% increase in the specific detectivity for the responsivity when compared to an InAs/GaSb superlattice detector”
Applicant has support in [0021] for a W-Type type II superlattices design has the detector has at least a 60% increase in the specific detectivity for the responsivity when compared to an InAs/GaSb superlattice detector.
Applicant does not have support for a cascaded W-Type type II superlattice for detecting infrared radiation wherein the detector has a specific detectivity and a responsivity and the detector has at least a 60% increase in the specific detectivity for the responsivity when compared to an InAs/GaSb superlattice detector.
Claims 31-33 rejected for dependence upon a 112(a) rejected instance claim.
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.
Claims 17, 31-33 are 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.
Regarding Claim 17. Claim 17 recites the phrase "when compared" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 31-33 are rejected for dependence upon a 112(b) rejected instance claim.
Regarding Claim 17. Claim 17 recites the limitation "wherein the detector has a specific detectivity and a responsivity and the detector has at least a 60% increase in the specific detectivity for the responsivity when compared to an InAs/GaSb superlattice detector" in the claim language.
It is unclear to the examiner what “a specific detectivity and a responsivity” for the a cascaded W-Type type II superlattice for detecting infrared radiation encompasses as applicant has not claimed nor disclosed any specific detectivity and a responsivity of the cascaded W-Type type II superlattice. Applicant has not
Nor has applicant claimed nor disclosed any specific detectivity nor responsivity of an InAs/GaSb superlattice detector.
Claims 31-33 are rejected for dependence upon a 112(b) rejected instance claim.
Regarding Claim 17. Claim 17 recites the limitation "an InAs/GaSb superlattice detector" in the claim language.
It is unclear to the examiner as to what applicant is attempting to claim with this claim limitations.
The limitation of "an InAs/GaSb superlattice detector" does not correspond to any specific device structure, i.e. Applicants do not claim how the "InAs/GaSb superlattice detector" is structured, how thick the individual component layers of the "InAs/GaSb superlattice detector" are, whether the individual component layers of the "InAs/GaSb superlattice detector" are doped, and if so, what the dopant concentrations would be, where the electrodes are disposed on the individual component layers of the "InAs/GaSb superlattice detector", etc. The specific detectivity and responsivity of the nonexistent "InAs/GaSb superlattice detector" should depend on the specific device structure of the nonexistent "InAs/GaSb superlattice detector", and therefore, the claimed increase cannot be determined unambiguously without Applicants' specifically claiming the structure of the "InAs/GaSb superlattice detector.
Claims 31-33 are rejected for dependence upon a 112(b) rejected instance claim.
Regarding Claim 17. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the specific detectivity for the responsivity when compared to an InAs/GaSb superlattice detector" in the claim language.
It is unclear to the examiner as to what applicant is attempting to claim with this claim limitations.
Examiner makes note that the specific detectivity and responsivity should depend on the operating conditions, and should not be single values, because the bandgaps of semiconductor materials would change with temperature. Therefore, for example, if the nonexistent "InAs/GaSb superlattice detector" is operated at a higher or lower temperature due to a different current or electrical bias applied in comparison to the claimed detector, then there is no way whatsoever to determine unambiguously the claimed increase.
The specific detectivity and responsivity of "InAs/GaSb superlattice detector" would vary with operating conditions, which Applicants do not claim, either, and when the reference values of the specific detectivity and responsivity vary with operating conditions, the claimed increase cannot be unambiguously determined.
Claims 31-33 are rejected for dependence upon a 112(b) rejected instance claim.
Regarding Claim 32. Claim 32 recites the limitation “wherein the detector has a specific detectivity of greater than about 1x109 Jones” in the claim language.
It is unclear to the examiner if the “a specific detectivity” is the same or a different specific detectivity in claim 17.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maimon (U.S. 2011/0156097), and Muhowski et al (U.S. 2020/0013923)
Regarding claim 17. Maimon discloses an apparatus (FIG. 1) comprising a detector ([0013] An infra-red detector) including a cascaded (Claim 5, i.e. a photo-detector, comprising stacked detector sub-units) type II superlattice ([0020], [0025] i.e. type II super lattice InAs/InGaSb) for detecting infrared radiation ([0013]).
the cascaded type II superlattice ([0020], [0025]),
Maimon fails to explicitly disclose a W-Type type II superlattice, wherein the detector has a specific detectivity and a responsivity and the detector has at least a 60% increase in the specific detectivity for the responsivity when compared to an InAs/GaSb superlattice detector.
However, Muhowski et al teaches a W-Type type II superlattice ([0064], i.e. a four layer superlattice (InAs/GaInSb/InAs/AlAsSb))
Since Both Maimon and Muhowski et al teach photodetectors, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of semiconductors before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the apparatus as disclosed to modify Maimon with the teachings of the W-Type type II superlattice as disclosed by Muhowski et al. The use of new superlattices AlGaInSb/InAs in Muhowski et al provides for low SRH recombination rates which makes them attractive for detectors (Muhowski et al, [0063]).
Maimon and Muhowski et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the detector has a specific detectivity and a responsivity and the detector has at least a 60% increase in the specific detectivity for the responsivity when compared to an InAs/GaSb superlattice detector.
However Applicant discloses in [0004] the W-Type type II superlattice comprises AlSb/InAs/InGaSb/InAs.
Muhowski et al discloses wherein the W-Type type II superlattice comprises AlSb/InAs/InGaSb/InAs ([0064], i.e. a four layer superlattice (InAs/GaInSb/InAs/AlAsSb))
Since Both Maimon and Muhowski et al teach photodetectors, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of semiconductors before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the apparatus as disclosed to modify Maimon with the teachings of the W-Type type II superlattice comprises AlSb/InAs/InGaSb/InAs as disclosed by Muhowski et al to practice the combination of wherein the detector has a specific detectivity and a responsivity and the detector has at least a 60% increase in the specific detectivity for the responsivity when compared to an InAs/GaSb superlattice detector. The use of a four layer superlattice (InAs/GaInSb/InAs/AlAsSb) in Muhowski et al provides for low SRH recombination rates which makes them attractive for detectors (Muhowski et al, [0063]).
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty.") MPEP 2112.01 II
Claims 17 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al (U.S. 2007/0224721), and Muhowski et al (U.S. 2020/0013923).
Regarding claim 17. Chuang et al discloses an apparatus (FIG. 5) comprising a detector (FIG. 5, item 50) including a cascaded (FIG. 5, item 57)([0014], interband cascade photodetector) type II superlattice for ([0027], i.e. Insofar as the superlattice is of type-II, the band alignment may be indirect in real space, indeed, the conduction band of one component (InAs) may have a lower energy than the valence band of another (GaSb)) detecting infrared radiation ([0027], i.e. interband photoexcitation by long-wavelength photons can be achieved. Indeed, the cutoff wavelength of these devices can be tailored, by adjusting the active region quantum structure, to cover the entire mid- to far-infrared spectral range).
Chuang et al fails to explicitly disclose a W-Type type II superlattice, wherein the detector has a specific detectivity and a responsivity and the detector has at least a 60% increase in the specific detectivity for the responsivity when compared to an InAs/GaSb superlattice detector.
However, Muhowski et al teaches a W-Type type II superlattice ([0064], i.e. a four layer superlattice (InAs/GaInSb/InAs/AlAsSb))
Since Both Chuang et al and Muhowski et al teach photodetectors, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of semiconductors before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the apparatus as disclosed to modify Chuang et al with the teachings of the W-Type type II superlattice as disclosed by Muhowski et al. The use of new superlattices AlGaInSb/InAs in Muhowski et al provides for low SRH recombination rates which makes them attractive for detectors (Muhowski et al, [0063]).
Chuang et al and Muhowski et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the detector has a specific detectivity and a responsivity and the detector has at least a 60% increase in the specific detectivity for the responsivity when compared to an InAs/GaSb superlattice detector.
However Applicant discloses in [0004] and claim 32 that the detector has a specific detectivity of greater than about 1×10.sup.9 Jones and the W-Type type II superlattice comprises AlSb/InAs/InGaSb/InAs.
Chuang et al discloses wherein the detector has a specific detectivity of greater than about 1x109 Jones ([0040] A peak responsivity obtained in operation of such a device is 46 mA/W at a wavelength of 3 um, which corresponds to D*=1.4.times.109 cm Hz.sup.1/2/W).
Muhowski et al discloses wherein the W-Type type II superlattice comprises AlSb/InAs/InGaSb/InAs ([0064], i.e. a four layer superlattice (InAs/GaInSb/InAs/AlAsSb))
Since Both Chuang et al and Muhowski et al teach photodetectors, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of semiconductors before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the apparatus as disclosed to modify Chuang et al with the teachings of the W-Type type II superlattice comprises AlSb/InAs/InGaSb/InAs as disclosed by Muhowski et al to practive the combination of wherein the detector has a specific detectivity and a responsivity and the detector has at least a 60% increase in the specific detectivity for the responsivity when compared to an InAs/GaSb superlattice detector. The use of a four layer superlattice (InAs/GaInSb/InAs/AlAsSb) in Muhowski et al provides for low SRH recombination rates which makes them attractive for detectors (Muhowski et al, [0063]).
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty.") MPEP 2112.01 II
Regarding claim 31. Chuang et al, and Muhowski et al discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 17 above.
Chuang et al further discloses wherein the detector is uncooled ([0040], i.e. The curve marked 70 indicates responsivity at 78 K, while the curve marked 72 indicates responsivity at room temperature (300 K)).
Regarding claim 32. Chuang et al, and Muhowski et al discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 17 above.
Chuang et al further discloses wherein the detector has a specific detectivity of greater than about 1x109 Jones ([0040] A peak responsivity obtained in operation of such a device is 46 mA/W at a wavelength of 3 um, which corresponds to D*=1.4.times.109 cm Hz.sup.1/2/W).
Regarding claim 33. Chuang et al, and Muhowski et al discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 17 above.
Chuang et al and Muhowski et al fail to explicitly disclose a cooling apparatus.
However, Chuang et al further discloses the semiconductor device and the device may be operated in a cooled environment to enhance performance ([0040], i.e. The curve marked 70 indicates responsivity at 78 K; [0013], i.e. the semiconductor device and the device may be operated in a cooled environment to enhance performance.; [claim 4], i.e. further comprising the step of cooling the semiconductor device to an operating temperature below room temperature).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a cooling apparatus to the semiconductor device so that the cooling apparatus provides a cooled environment for enhanced performance (Chuang et al, [0013]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 17, 31-33.
On page 6 of applicant’s remarks, applicant appears to be arguing the cited documents fail to recite a "W-Type type II superlattice " and "wherein the detector has a specific detectivity and a responsivity and the detector has at least a 60% increase in the specific detectivity for the responsivity when compared to an InAs/GaSb superlattice detector."
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner respectfully points out that Chuang et al and Muhowski et al recites applicant’s amended claim limitation. Maimon and Muhowski et al also recites applicant’s amended claim limitation
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wellman et al (U.S. 4,990,782) discloses radiation shield for thermoelectrically cooled infrared detectors.
Deliwala et al (U.S. 2020/0161502) discloses superlattice photodetector/light emitting diode.
Kim et al (U.S. 7,755,079) discloses superlattice photodetector.
Kim et al (U.S. 8,022,390) discloses lateral conduction infrared photodetector.
Leavitt (U.S. 2012/0217475) discloses optoelectronic devices including compound valence-band quantum well structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT E BAUMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9045. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 CST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/S.E.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2815