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 Amendment
The reply filed on 1/22/2026 is not fully responsive to the prior Office Action because: The amendment received 1/22/2026 is not fully responsive to the non-final Office action, mailed 10/22/2025. Claims have been amended to only non-elected species. This amendment incorporates the subject matter from previous claim 24, which was explained to be withdrawn due to being drawn to nonelected species (see pg. 2 of Office Action mailed 10/22/2025). Since the period for reply set forth in the prior Office action has expired, this application will become abandoned unless applicant corrects the deficiency and obtains an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The date on which the petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a) and the appropriate nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) have been filed is the date for purposes of determining the period of extension and the corresponding amount of the fee. In no case may an applicant reply outside the SIX (6) MONTH statutory period or obtain an extension for more than FIVE (5) MONTHS beyond the date for reply set forth in an Office action. A fully responsive reply must be timely filed to avoid abandonment of this application.
The amendment to the drawings includes new matter, as further explained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant fails to provide an argument to the previous rejections, which were in regards to the elected species. The rejection to the elected species are maintained and further explained below.
Drawings
The amendment filed 1/22/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the configuration of new Fig. 5E is not supported by the original disclosure.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claims 16-17 and 22-23 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.
Claim 16 recites “the stubs;” however, stubs being included is provided in claim 6 in an alternative limitation, making it unclear what is required when the alternative limitation not including stubs is being implemented.
Claim 22 recites “the optically absorbing membrane comprises …a thermoelectric transducer layer.” Previously, claim 1 recites “the optically absorbing membrane comprising a thermoelectric transducer layer.” It is unclear whether the “a thermoelectric transducer layer” of claim 22 is in addition to the “a thermoelectric transducer layer” of claim 1 or if this is merely a redundant recitation. Claim 23 includes a similar recitation and issue.
Claim 22 recites “the optically absorbing layers being disposed on either side of the thermoelectric transducer layer.” The positional relationships are unclear. It is unclear what “either side of” represents. Additionally, it is unclear if both of the two absorbing layers together are disposed together on one side or if the two of the optically absorbing layers are being required to be on different sides by “on either side of.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 13, 20, 23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by HSU (US2010/0031992).
Regarding claim 1, HSU teaches a detector (1) comprising:
an optically absorbing membrane (5; 20; 25; 60) suspended over a cavity (33) between the membrane and a substrate (30), the substrate comprised in the detector, the optically absorbing membrane comprising a thermoelectric transducer layer and an optically absorbing layer (for example Fig. 7), the thermoelectric transducer layer comprising a first part and a second part (20 and 25), and
a thermoelectric transducer attaching the optically absorbing membrane over the cavity, wherein the optically absorbing membrane forms a contacting element between n-type and p-type thermoelectric elements of the thermoelectric transducer (20 and 25; claim 29), wherein the attachment of the optically absorbing membrane over the cavity by the thermoelectric transducer is by a first leg and a second leg (20 and 25) which do not comprise non-thermoelectric material ([0087]; claim 29),
wherein the first leg and the first part are formed of a first semiconductor layer and the second leg and the second part are formed of a second semiconductor layer (20 and 25; claim 29).
Regarding claim 3, HSU teaches the membrane has a thickness of less than 800 nanometres ([0083] and [0089]; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, HSU teaches he detector further comprises a back reflector (34) attached in an inside edge of the cavity, arranged to reflect an optical signal not absorbed by the membrane back toward the membrane.
Regarding claim 8, HSU teaches the thermoelectric transducer is comprised in part of silicon ([0042]).
Regarding claim 9, HSU teaches the thermoelectric transducer is comprised in part of bismuth telluride ([0042]).
Regarding claim 10, HSU teaches the thermoelectric transducer is comprised in part of antimony telluride ([0042]).
Regarding claim 13, HSU teaches the optically absorbing membrane is comprised of titanium ([0087]).
Regarding claim 20, HSU teaches the substrate comprises a silicon layer ([0077]).
Regarding claim 23, HSU teaches the optically absorbing membrane comprises one and only one optically absorbing layer and a thermoelectric transducer layer, the optically absorbing layer being disposed on one and only one side of the thermoelectric transducer layer (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 25, HSU teaches a method of manufacturing a detector (for example Figs. 3), comprising:
obtaining a substrate wafer (200) and depositing an oxide layer (230) on the substrate wafer;
depositing a thermoelectric transducer layer (250 and 260) on the oxide layer, the thermoelectric transducer layer comprising a first part and a second part;
depositing an optically absorbing layer (60) on the thermoelectric transducer layer, and
etching a recess into the oxide layer to form a cavity, leaving an optically absorbing membrane comprising the optically absorbing layer and part of the thermoelectric transducer layer suspended over the cavity by the thermoelectric transducer layer, wherein the attachment of the optically absorbing membrane over the cavity by thermoelectric transducer is by a first legs and a second leg which do not comprise non-thermoelectric materials (Fig. 7)
wherein the first leg and the first part are formed of a first semiconductor layer and the second leg and the second part are formed of a second semiconductor layer (Fig. 7).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over HSU (US2010/0031992).
Regarding claim 5, Hsu teaches that having a detector being uncooled, or passively, has many benefits such as smaller size, lower power consumption, and lower costs ([0012]-[0015]), and does not teach active cooling. If it is held that Hsu does not teach the detector is only passively cooled; then, the Examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known to only use passive cooling of a device for the benefit of reducing costs, ease of manufacture, and/ or reducing size. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to have the detector be only passively cooled for the benefit of reducing costs, ease of manufacture, and/ or reducing size.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HSU (US2010/0031992) in view of Brueck et al. (US 2015/011440).
Regarding claim 6, Hsu is silent with respect to a frame either on top of the thermoelectric transducer or between the thermoelectric transducer and stubs defining a height of the cavity. However, Brueck teachings including a compressive frame with a thermoelectric module improves service life efficiency ([0032]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to include a frame, as taught by Brueck, with the thermoelectric module, as taught by Hsu, for the benefit of improving service life efficiency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to have the frame location be on top of the thermoelectric transducer to achieve the compressive function of the compressive frame.
Regarding claim 16, Hsu further teaches the stubs comprise electrical connections between the thermoelectric transducer and readout electronics configured to process a signal from the detector ([0080]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HSU (US2010/0031992) in view of Brueck et al. (US 2015/011440) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Oshima et al. (US 11,911,877).
Regarding claim 7, Brueck is silent with respect to the material(s) of the frame. However, Oshima teaches that aluminium oxide can be used in a frame (claim 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to have the frame be composed of aluminium oxide since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HSU (US2010/0031992) in view of Imperinetti et al. (US 2015/0053858).
Regarding claim 11, Hsu does not teach the optically absorbing membrane is comprised of titanium nitride. However, Imperinetti teaches using titanium nitride in an absorbing layer ([0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to have the optically absorbing membrane be comprised of titanium nitride since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding clam 12, Hsu does not teach the optically absorbing membrane is comprised of titanium-tungsten. However, Imperinetti teaches using titanium-tungsten in an absorbing layer ([0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to have the optically absorbing membrane be comprised of titanium-tungsten since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HSU (US2010/0031992) in view of Basak (US 2015/0365169).
Regarding claims 14-15, Hsu does not teach the optically absorbing membrane is comprised of aluminium-doped zinc oxide. However, Basak teaches aluminium-doped zinc oxide being an absorptive material (claim 9). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to have the optically absorbing membrane bd comprised of aluminium-doped zinc oxide since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HSU (US2010/0031992) in view of Omenetto et al. (US 2013/0310908).
Regarding claims 18-19, Hsu does not teach the optically absorbing membrane is a resistive impedance matched absorber or a plasmonic absorber. However, Omenetto teaches using plasmonic nanoparticles to absorb incident radiation in a thermoelectric device ([0101]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to have the optically absorbing membrane be a plasmonic absorber that includes plasmonic nanoparticles, as taught by Omenetto, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 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:
Udrea et al. (US 2017/0219434) teaches an IR detector array having plasmonic patterned layer (7; [0063]).
Kawasaki et al. ( US 2019/0178718) teaches an infrared sensor that includes a plurality of through holes (18).
The prior art of record does not disclose or reasonably suggest, along with the other claimed limitations, a detector comprising: namely, the optically absorbing membrane is patterned with a pattern which includes puncturing the membrane with a plurality of holes.
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 Carolyn Fin whose telephone number is (571)270-1286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
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.
/CAROLYN FIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2884