Detailed Action
This office action is in response to the request for considered examination. Claims 1, 3, 6, 9-25, and 28 are pending.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4th, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 4th, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pgs. 7-9, “Remarks”) that the combination of Rogers, Young, and Barwicz fail to teach the limitations presented in amended Claim 1.
However, as seen below, amended Claim 1 is rejected by the combination of Rogers, Young, and Barr.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and are moot in view of the new grounds of 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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate that the corresponding limitations are addressed with a secondary reference/embodiment in an obviousness analysis.
Claims 1, 9-10, 12-17, 19, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers et al. (2010/0002402 A1; hereinafter Rogers) in view of Barr et al. (2018/0366654 A1; hereinafter Barr) and Young et al. (2016/0029482 A1; hereinafter Young).
Regarding Claim 1, Rogers (figs. 14, 16A-E, 17A) teaches:
A photodetector ([0063], [0212], focal plane array, see fig. 14) for an optoelectronic system ([0219], camera, see fig. 17A), comprising:
a flexible substrate ([0212], [0215], films of polyimide, PI, see fig. 16A);
a plurality of photodetector units ([0212], [0215], single crystalline silicon photodetectors, PD) attached to the flexible substrate (PI), each of the plurality of photodetector units (PD) being made of a material that is arranged to sense optical radiation and generate a photocurrent signal based on the sensed optical radiation ([0223], an example states that 620 nm – 700 nm may be sensed); the material being optically-transparent to the optical radiation; and
a circuit ([0212], [0215], metal interconnects) attached to the flexible substrate (PI), the circuit comprising a plurality of conductors (metal interconnects) electrically connected with the plurality of photodetector units (PD) and adapted to transmit the photocurrent signals generated by the plurality of photodetector units (PD) to an external device ([0219], software for acquiring images); wherein
the flexible substrate (PI), the plurality of photodetector units and the circuit are all optically-transparent to the optical radiation (PI is clear, see fig. 16D); and wherein
the plurality of conductors (metal interconnects) comprises nanowires that are optically-transparent to the optical radiation, the nanowires providing connection paths (see fig. 16A).
Rogers doesn’t explicitly teach that each of the plurality of photodetector units being made of a material that is arranged to sense optical radiation and generate a photocurrent signal based on the sensed optical radiation; the material being optically-transparent to the optical radiation; and the plurality of photodetector units are optically-transparent to the optical radiation.
However, Barr (fig. 1A) teaches that:
each of the plurality of photodetector units ([0098], photoactive layer 140) being made of a material that is arranged to sense optical radiation and generate a photocurrent signal based on the sensed optical radiation ([0008], photoactive compounds absorb light and produce current);
the material being optically-transparent to the optical radiation ([0100], 140 is made of materials that are visibly transparent); and
the plurality of photodetector units (140) are optically-transparent to the optical radiation ([0100], 140 is made of materials that are visibly transparent).
Barr also teaches that these optical characteristics provide the ability to generate electricity from incident solar radiation while still allowing visible light to pass through and for a viewer to see through the device ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the photodetector of Rogers to include the transparent photodetectors of Barr to form a solar device that can be seen through.
Rogers doesn’t teach the circuit is optically-transparent to the optical radiation and the plurality of conductors comprises nanowires that are optically-transparent to the optical radiation, the nanowires providing connection paths.
However, Young (fig. 1H) teaches that:
the circuit ([0054], 164 form interconnection grids) is optically-transparent to the optical radiation ([0104]) and
the plurality of conductors ([0054], 164) comprise nanowires ([0054], Ag nanowires) that are optically-transparent ([0104]) to the optical radiation,
the nanowires providing connection paths (conductive and may provide connection).
Young also teaches that the Ag nanowires attain higher electrical conductivity and can be used for maintaining high transparency ([0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the photodetector of Rogers to include the silver nanowires of Young to provide a high-transparency and attain higher electrical conductivity.
Regarding Claim 9, Young (fig. 1H) teaches the photodetector of claim 1, wherein the nanowires (164) are made of silver ([0054], Ag nanowires).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Rogers and Young teaches the photodetector of claim 9, wherein the circuit (Rogers, metal interconnects) comprises a plurality of circuit portions (Rogers, four marked regions that connect the photodetector array to the lines on the printed circuit board, see annotated fig. 17B), each having respective patterned silver nanowires (Young, patterned Ag nanowires), and the plurality of circuit portions are spaced apart (Rogers, see annotated fig. 17B).
PNG
media_image1.png
458
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 17B
Regarding Claim 12, Rogers (figs. 14, 16A-E, 17A) teaches:
An optoelectronic system ([0219], camera, see fig. 17A), comprising:
a support structure ([0212], PDMS, [0213], hemispherical glass substrate, see fig. 14) having a projection or recess that provides a curved surface (PDMS is convex, glass substrate is concave, see fig. 14);
a photodetector ([0063], [0212], focal plane array, see fig. 14) of claim 1 (see Claim 1), with at least the plurality of photodetector units (PD) attached to the curved surface (PDMS); and
a control circuit ([0219], electrode lines) electrically connected with the circuit (metal interconnects) of the photodetector and for connecting the photodetector (focal plane array) with a signal processor ([0219], software for acquiring images), the signal processor being arranged to process the photocurrent signals to generate an image associated with the sensed optical radiation.
Regarding Claim 13, Rogers (figs. 14, 16A-E, 17A) teaches the optoelectronic system of claim 12, wherein the projection or recess is generally dome-shaped (PDMS is convex, see fig. 14).
Regarding Claim 14, Rogers (figs. 14, 16A-E, 17A) teaches the optoelectronic system of claim 13, wherein the curved surface is a convex surface (PDMS is convex, see fig. 14).
Regarding Claim 15, Rogers (figs. 14, 16A-E, 17A) teaches the optoelectronic system of claim 13, wherein the curved surface is a concave surface (glass substrate is concave, see fig. 14).
Regarding Claim 16, Rogers (figs. 14, 16A-E, 17A) teaches the optoelectronic system of claim 12, wherein the plurality of photodetector units (PD) are attached to the curved surface (PDMS) generally centrally of the curved surface (see fig. 16D).
Regarding Claim 17, Rogers (figs. 14, 16A-E, 17A) teaches the optoelectronic system of claim 16, wherein the curved surface (PDMS) is optically-transparent (see fig. 16D).
Regarding Claim 19, Rogers (figs. 14, 16A-E, 17A) teaches the optoelectronic system of claim 12, wherein the control circuit (electrode lines) is arranged at least partly on a circuit board ([0219], printed circuit board, see fig. 17A), the circuit board comprises an optically-transparent portion (portion of PCB where hemispherical imager is mounted, see fig. 31) at a location corresponding to the curved surface (PDMS).
Regarding Claim 28, Rogers (figs. 14, 16A-E, 17A) teaches the optoelectronic system of claim 12, further comprising a lens ([0221], plano-convex lens) arranged to focus optical radiation onto the plurality of photodetector units (PD).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers, Barr, and Young as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Nazir et al. (Nazir, Ghazanfar, “Enhanced photoresponse of ZnO quantum dot decorated MoS2 thin films”, RSC Adv., 2017, 7, 16890; hereinafter Nazir).
Regarding Claim 3, Rogers doesn’t teach that each of the plurality of photodetector units comprises a ZnO-MoS2 film which comprises ZnO nanoparticles and MoS2 monolayer composite.
However, Nazir (fig. 1a) teaches the photodetector of claim 1, wherein the photodetector units (Pg. 2, “Results and discussion”, Para. 1; photodetector consisting of ZnO-QDs decorated MoS2) comprises a ZnO-MoS2 film which comprises ZnO nanoparticles and MoS2 monolayer composite (ZnO-QDs decorated MoS2). Nazir also teaches that a ZnO-MoS2 heterostructure provides enhanced carrier mobility in a photodetector (Pg. 9, “Conclusion”, Para. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the photodetector of Rogers to include the ZnO-MoS2 of Nazir to enhance carrier mobility.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers, Barr, and Young as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Moriwaki et al. (2018/0226596 A1; hereinafter Moriwaki).
Regarding Claim 6, Rogers doesn’t teach that the flexible substrate is in a form of a film made of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA).
However, Moriwaki (fig. 1B) teaches the photodetector of claim 1, wherein the flexible substrate ([0073], 11) is in a form of a film made of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) ([0062]). Moriwaki also teaches that polyvinyl alcohol and polyimide are comparable materials for flexible substrates ([0062]). Since Moriwaki teaches the functional equivalence of polyvinyl alcohol and polyimide as a flexible substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute polyvinyl alcohol for the polyimide layer of Rogers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polyvinyl alcohol as a flexible substrate in the device of Rogers, since Moriwaki teaches the functional equivalence of polyimide and polyvinyl alcohol as materials for flexible substrates.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers, Barr, and Young as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (Kim, Min Sung, “An aquatic-vision inspired camera based on a monocentric lens and a silicon nanorod photodiode array”, Nat. Elec., 2020, 3, 546-553; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding Claim 11, Rogers doesn’t explicitly teach of the plurality of circuit portions includes a relatively narrow inner portion, a relatively wide outer portion, and a middle tapering portion connected between the relatively narrow inner portion and the relatively wide outer portion.
However, Kim (figs. 3a and 17) teaches the photodetector of claim 10, wherein the plurality of circuit portions (Pg. 6, “Imaging demonstrations using the integrated camera module”, Para. 2; ACF, see fig. 3a) includes a relatively narrow inner portion, a relatively wide outer portion, and a middle tapering portion connected between the relatively narrow inner portion and the relatively wide outer portion (ACF pads, see fig. 3a) while still maintaining the function of connecting the photodetector array to the external electronics. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the circuit portions of Kim for the circuit portions of Rogers and yielded the predictable results of electrically connecting the photodetector array to external electronics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the circuit portions of Kim for the circuit portions of Rogers, since simple substitution of circuit portions for another is an appropriate rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers, Barr, and Young as applied to Claim 12 above, and further in view of Ting et al. (2024/0250199 A1; hereinafter Ting).
Regarding Claim 18, Rogers doesn’t explicitly teach the support structure is made of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). Rogers does teach that the support structure may include a glass substrate (see Claim 12).
However, Ting (see fig. 6) teaches the optoelectronic system of claim 12, wherein the support structure is made of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). Ting also teaches that PMMA and glass are comparable materials for transparent support substrates ([0050]). Since Ting teaches the functional equivalence of PMMA and glass as a support substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute PMMA for the glass of Rogers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use PMMA as a support substrate in the device of Rogers, since Ting teaches the functional equivalence of PMMA and glass as materials for support substrates.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers, Barr, and Young as applied to Claim 19 above, and further in view of Song et al. (2016/0256677 A1; hereinafter Song).
Regarding Claim 20, Rogers (figs. 14, 16A-E, 17A) teaches at least part of the photodetector is sandwiched between the circuit board and the support structure, and wherein the circuit board (printed circuit board) and the support structure (PDMS and glass substrate) are fixed to each other (see fig. 17A).
Rogers doesn’t explicitly teach at least part of the photodetector is sandwiched between the circuit board and the support structure.
However, Song (fig. 10B) teaches the optoelectronic system of claim 19, wherein at least part of the photodetector ([0091], outer portion of conductive channels connected to outer pads, see fig. 10B) is sandwiched between the circuit board ([0092], package board) and the support structure ([0091], PDMS) while still maintaining the function of connecting the photodetector to the package board and external electronics. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the housing of Song for the housing of Rogers and yielded the predictable results of electrically connecting the photodetector to the package board and external electronics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the housing of Song for the housing of Rogers, since simple substitution of housing for another in an optoelectronic system is an appropriate rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 21, Song (fig. 10B) teaches the optoelectronic system of claim 20, further comprising anchor pads ([0091], outer pads) arranged between the circuit board (package board) and the support structure (PDMS) for anchoring the photodetector ([0091]-[0092], connects the photodetector to the support structure).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers and Young as applied to Claim 12 above, and further in view of Mochizuki et al. (2012/0154353 A1; hereinafter Mochizuki).
Regarding Claim 22, Rogers (figs. 14, 16A-E, 17A) teaches the optoelectronic system of claim 12, wherein the control circuit comprises: one or more multiplexers ([0260], mux/demux electronics) connected with the plurality of photodetector units (PD), each of the one or more multiplexers providing a plurality of channels each having at least one switch and at least one of the plurality of photodetector units; and a controller operably connected with the one or more multiplexers for controlling operation of the switches of the one or more multiplexers.
Rogers doesn’t explicitly teach that each of the one or more multiplexers providing a plurality of channels each having at least one switch and at least one of the plurality of photodetector units; and a controller operably connected with the one or more multiplexers for controlling operation of the switches of the one or more multiplexers.
However, Mochizuki (fig. 1A) teaches that each of the one or more multiplexers ([0024], 120) providing a plurality of channels (wires connecting to 121 and 122, see fig. 1A) each having at least one switch ([0024], 121, 122) and at least one of the plurality of photodetector units ([0024], 102); and a controller ([0024], external control circuit connected through 125 and 126) operably connected with the one or more multiplexers (120) for controlling operation of the switches (121, 122) of the one or more multiplexers (120). Mochizuki also teaches that the use of the switches and control circuits allows for controlling the connections to the various pixels ([0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optoelectronic system of Rogers to include the switches and controller of Mochizuki to provide a system capable of controlling the connections to the various pixels.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers, Young, and Mochizuki as applied to Claim 22 above, and further in view of Song.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Rogers and Mochizuki (fig. 1A) teaches the optoelectronic system of claim 22, wherein the controller (Mochizuki, external control circuit) is arranged to: selectively open and close each of the plurality of switches (Mochizuki, 121, 122) to selectively disconnect and connect the respective photodetector unit (Mochizuki, 102) with the signal processor (Rogers, software for acquiring images); and control the switches to sequentially connect each one of the plurality of photodetector units to the signal processor.
Neither Rogers nor Mochizuki teach control the switches to sequentially connect each one of the plurality of photodetector units to the signal processor.
However, Song teaches control the switches ([0092], iteratively switching two multiplexer) to sequentially connect each one of the plurality of photodetector units ([0092], each pixel can be individually electrically-addressed) to the signal processor ([0092], image forming software). Song also teaches that this method allows for a bad pixel test to be performed ([0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optoelectronic system of Rogers and Mochizuki to include the controlling of switches as taught by Song to allow for a bad pixel test to be performed.
Regarding Claim 24, Rogers (figs. 14, 16A-E, 17A) teaches the optoelectronic system of claim 23, wherein the signal processor (software for acquiring images) is electrically connected with the plurality of channels (mux, PD) to collect the photocurrent signals generated ([0260], see fig. 17F) by the plurality of photodetector units (PD); and wherein the signal processor is arranged to perform image reconstruction (see fig. 17F) based on the photocurrent signals generated by the plurality of photodetector units (PD).
Regarding Claim 25, Rogers (figs. 14, 16A-E, 17A) teaches the optoelectronic system of claim 24, wherein the signal processor (software for acquiring images) is arranged to perform image reconstruction by: converting the photocurrent signals to greyscale values ([0260]); and generating an image based on the greyscale values ([0260], see fig. 17F).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIN HRNJIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1794. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 April 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights