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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office Action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on May 27, 2026. No Claims have been amended or added. Claims 13-18 have been canceled previously. Currently claims 1-12 and 19 are pending.
Applicant’s clarification regarding rejections 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) was persuasive during the interview, thereby withdrawn.
The Affidavit-traversing rejections or objections rule 132, under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on May 26, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1 based upon 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Rui Q. (US 20160005895 A1) “Yang et al.” in view of Meyer, Jerry R. (US 20180212080 A1) “Meyer et al.” as set forth in the last Office action because:
Regarding Claim 1, in Affidavit document pages 2-4, the applicant stated “First, claim 1 requires an ICIP comprising a number Ns of IC stages each comprising an absorber, wherein Ns is greater than one and is configured to achieve a peak detectivity Dreak. Because the ICIP comprises more than one IC stage and because each IC stage comprises an absorber, the claimed ICIP comprises more than one absorber”.
However, Applicant’s Primary prior art (US 20160005895 A1) “Yang et al.” discloses N number of IC stages (“IC architecture stages 104 (N stages are shown)” ¶ [0017]) and Secondary prior art (US 20180212080 A1) “Meyer et al.” discloses the absorber thickness configured to achieve higher detectivity (“the absorber thickness can be shrunk to as little as ≈10 nm (e.g., a single QW) without sacrificing QE at the resonant wavelength. Therefore, because the dark current is reduced proportionally, the resonant cavity configuration will either provide higher detectivity D*” ¶ [0020]). Meyer et al. absorber is to use in the N number of stages of Yang et al. to achieve the desired detectivity. It is understood from Applicant's specification, that in order to arrive at a structure which can satisfy the formulas, one has available to them, several concrete and finite characteristics of the ICIP device. The variables which have been disclosed by Applicant to arrive at satisfying the formula are the photodetector constituent layers thicknesses (of the hole barrier, absorber, and electron barrier in ¶ [0033-0035]), N number of IC stages, and material types. Of these variables, it appears that the prior art is already in possession of this information. Meyer shows in Fig. 5, the thicknesses of each of the three layers, falling within the disclosure thicknesses. Both references show the use of the same materials. And Meyer shows the multiple stack unit information as well. The formula can be used to analyze any of these devices. It cannot on its own be used to provide concrete differences in structure, as it merely characterizes the behavior of the device.
Applicant further argues “Meyer fails to disclose Dpeak …. proportional to a constant, a wavelength k of an incident light, or the square root of an absorption coefficient a of the absorber, and inversely proportional to Planck's constant h, a speed of light c, or the square root of a thermal generation rate gth.”
Examiner disagrees, because thickness, material and unit information of absorber of Yang et al. as modified by Meyer et al. would inherently have the property of the thickness, material and unit information depending on the IC architecture of specific N stages, absorption coefficient and diffusion lengths because the absorber, hole barrier and electron barrier are made of the materials, which are the same as the absorber, hole barrier and electron barrier as disclosed. Therefore, D*peak will show the same characteristics at satisfying the formulas as best understood, in light of the dimensions needing to be on the same order of dimension as usable for infrared detection. See MPEP 2112.01.
However, upon further consideration, new reference Rogalski, Antoni, "Infrared Detectors," Second Edition, 2011, (Chapter 9 Page 204/Page 144 of the NPL submitted)” “Rogalski et al.” was brought into further illustrate the relationship among detectivity, wavelength λ, Planck's constant h, and speed of light c. “Rogalski et al.” equation 9.103, equation 9.104 and equation 9.105 discloses detectivity is proportional to wavelength λ and detectivity is inversely proportional to Planck's constant h, a speed of light c.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 filed on May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reason is set forth below,
Regarding Claim 1, in the remarks document pages 8-9, the applicant stated “First, claim 1 requires an ICIP comprising a number Ns of IC stages each comprising an absorber, wherein Ns is greater than one and is configured to achieve a peak detectivity Dreak. Because the ICIP comprises more than one IC stage and because each IC stage comprises an absorber, the claimed ICIP comprises more than one absorber.” and “the Final Office Action cites Yang's N IC stages and Meyer's M QWs, presumably in an effort to combine the two. See Final Office Action, at 6 and 7. However, Yang's N IC stages and Meyer's M QWs are two totally different things. Id. at 9. Meyer's M is the number of QWs within a single absorber of a non-IC (i.e., single stage) device. Id. In contrast, Yang's N is the number of IC stages in an IC device. Id. As can be seen, Yang's IC device 102 comprises N stages where each stage comprises an absorption layer 106 so that the IC device 102 comprises N absorption layers 106. Id. Thus, it would not be obvious to combine Meyer's M QWs with Yang's N IC stages”
However, Applicant’s Primary prior art (US 20160005895 A1) “Yang et al.” discloses N number of IC stages (“IC architecture stages 104 (N stages are shown)” ¶ [0017]) and Secondary prior art (US 20180212080 A1) “Meyer et al.” discloses the absorber thickness configured to achieve higher detectivity (“the absorber thickness can be shrunk to as little as ≈10 nm (e.g., a single QW) without sacrificing QE at the resonant wavelength. Therefore, because the dark current is reduced proportionally, the resonant cavity configuration will either provide higher detectivity D*” ¶ [0020]). Meyer et al. absorber is to use in the N number of stages of Yang et al. to achieve the desired detectivity. It is understood from Applicant's specification, that in order to arrive at a structure which can satisfy the formulas, one has available to them, several concrete and finite characteristics of the ICIP device. The variables which have been disclosed by Applicant to arrive at satisfying the formula are the photodetector constituent layers thicknesses (of the hole barrier, absorber, and electron barrier in ¶ [0033-0035]), N number of IC stages, and material types. Of these variables, it appears that the prior art is already in possession of this information. Meyer shows in Fig. 5, the thicknesses of each of the three layers, falling within the disclosure thicknesses. Both references show the use of the same materials. And Meyer shows the multiple stack unit information as well. The formula can be used to analyze any of these devices. It cannot on its own be used to provide concrete differences in structure, as it merely characterizes the behavior of the device.
In the remarks document pages 9-10, the applicant stated applicant further stated, “Second claim 1 requires Dpeak is proportional to a constant, a wavelength k of an incident light, or the square root of an absorption coefficient a of the absorber. The Final Office Action admits Yang fails to disclose that limitation”.
Examiner disagrees, because thickness, material and unit information of absorber of Yang et al. as modified by Meyer et al. would inherently have the property of the thickness, material and unit information depending on the IC architecture of specific N stages, absorption coefficient and diffusion lengths because the absorber, hole barrier and electron barrier are made of the materials, which are the same as the absorber, hole barrier and electron barrier as disclosed. Therefore, D*peak will show the same characteristics at satisfying the formulas as best understood, in light of the dimensions needing to be on the same order of dimension as usable for infrared detection. See MPEP 2112.01.
However, upon further consideration, new reference Rogalski, Antoni, "Infrared Detectors," Second Edition, 2011, (Chapter 9 Page 204/Page 144 of the NPL submitted)” “Rogalski et al.” was brought into further illustrate the relationship between detectivity and wavelength λ. “Rogalski et al.” equation 9.103, equation 9.104 and equation 9.105 discloses detectivity is proportional to wavelength λ.
In the remarks document page 10, the applicant stated applicant further stated, “Third, claim 1 requires that Dpeak is inversely proportional to Planck's constant h, a speed of light c, or the square root of a thermal generation rate gth. The Final Office Action admits Yang fails to disclose that limitation.”
Examiner disagrees, because thickness, material and unit information of absorber of Yang et al. as modified by Meyer et al. would inherently have the property of the thickness, material and unit information depending on the IC architecture of specific N stages, absorption coefficient and diffusion lengths because the absorber, hole barrier and electron barrier are made of the materials, which are the same as the absorber, hole barrier and electron barrier as disclosed. Therefore, D*peak will show the same characteristics at satisfying the formulas as best understood, in light of the dimensions needing to be on the same order of dimension as usable for infrared detection. See MPEP 2112.01.
However, upon further consideration, new reference Rogalski, Antoni, "Infrared Detectors," Second Edition, 2011, (Chapter 9 Page 204/Page 144 of the NPL submitted)” “Rogalski et al.” was brought into further illustrate the relationship among detectivity, Planck's constant h, and speed of light c. “Rogalski et al.” equation 9.103, equation 9.104 and equation 9.105 discloses detectivity is inversely proportional to Planck's constant h, a speed of light c.
Therefore, a nonfinal rejection is made using Yang, Rui Q. (US 20160005895 A1) “Yang et al.” in view of Meyer, Jerry R. (US 20180212080 A1) “Meyer et al.” further in view of “Rogalski, Antoni, "Infrared Detectors," Second Edition, 2011, (Chapter 9 Page 204/Page 144 of the NPL submitted)” “Rogalski et al.”
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.
Claims 1, 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Rui Q. (US 20160005895 A1) “Yang et al.” in view of Meyer, Jerry R. (US 20180212080 A1) “Meyer et al.” further in view of “Rogalski, Antoni, "Infrared Detectors," Second Edition, 2011, (Chapter 9 Page 204/Page 144 of the NPL submitted)” “Rogalski et al.”
Regarding Claim 1, Yang et al. Figs. 1-5 discloses an interband cascade infrared photodetector (ICIP) (“an IC device 102 (PV or PD)” ¶ [0015]; “Examples of PD devices that can benefit from the disclosed IC architecture include, but are not limited to, infrared photodetectors and devices using such detectors” ¶ [0014]) comprising:
a number N, of interband cascade (IC) stages (“IC architecture stages 104 (N stages are shown)” ¶ [0017]), wherein N, is greater than one (“To achieve high conversion efficiency, multiple junction cells with different band gap materials can be used.” ¶ [0004]), and wherein each of the IC stages comprises:
a hole barrier (“each of layers 108A-108N corresponds to an intraband transport region” ¶ [0015]; “an intraband transport region configured to act as a hole barrier” ¶ [0032]);
an absorber (“each of layers 106A-106N corresponds to an absorption region” ¶ [0015]) coupled to the hole barrier (“an intraband transport region configured to act as a hole barrier and coupled to the absorption region” ¶ [0032]) and wherein the absorber is configured to absorb photons (“the absorption region configured to absorb photons” ¶ [0032]); and
an electron barrier (“each of layers 110A-110N corresponds to an interband transport tunneling region” ¶ [0015]; “an interband tunneling region configured to act as an electron barrier” ¶ [0032]) coupled to the absorber (“an interband tunneling region configured to act as an electron barrier and coupled to the absorption region” ¶ [0032]),
wherein the hole barrier comprises a first band gap (“the intraband transport region has a second band gap” ¶ [0032]), the absorber comprises a second band gap (“an absorption region comprising at least one of a Type-I superlattice and a direct band gap semiconductor bulk material with a first band gap” ¶ [0032]) that is less (“the intraband transport region has a second band gap that is greater than the first band gap” ¶ [0032]) than the first band gap, and the electron barrier comprises a third band gap (“the interband tunneling region has a third band gap that is greater than the first band gap” ¶ [0032]) that is greater than the second band gap (“the interband tunneling region has a third band gap that is greater than the first band gap” ¶ [0032]).
However, Yang et al. does not disclose interband cascade (IC) stages is configured to achieve a peak detectivity D*peak, of the ICIP within a range and wherein d is configured to achieve D*peak within the range.
wherein D*peak is proportional to a constant, a wavelength λ of an incident light, or the square root of an absorption coefficient α of the absorber, and
wherein D*peak is inversely proportional to Planck's constant h, a speed of light c, or the square root of a thermal generation rate gth.
In the similar field of endeavor of photodetector, Meyer et al. Figs. 1-16 discloses interband cascade (IC) stages (“an absorber comprising one or more quantum wells (QWs), where M is the number of QWs and α is a dimensionless fraction representing the absorbance per pass by a single QW.” ¶ [0010]) is configured to achieve a peak detectivity D*peak, of the ICIP within a range (“increase the detectivity D* while retaining high QE” ¶ [0014]) and wherein d is configured to achieve D*peak within the range (“the absorber thickness can be shrunk to as little as ≈10 nm (e.g., a single QW) without sacrificing QE at the resonant wavelength. Therefore, because the dark current is reduced proportionally, the resonant cavity configuration will either provide higher detectivity D*” ¶ [0020]).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify number of layers and thickness of the absorber of the photodetector of Yang et al. with the number of layers and thickness of the absorber of the photodetector of Meyer et al. so that the dark current is reduced proportionally, the resonant cavity configuration will either provide higher detectivity D* at a given operating temperature, or maintain a target D* at higher operating temperature than is attainable using a conventional broadband IR detector (Meyer et al. ¶ [0020]).
However, Meyer et al. does not explicitly disclose, wherein D*peak is proportional to a constant, a wavelength λ of an incident light, or the square root of an absorption coefficient α of the absorber, and
wherein D*peak is inversely proportional to Planck's constant h, a speed of light c, or the square root of a thermal generation rate gth.
In the similar field of endeavor of photodetector, Rogalski et al. Chapter 9 Page 204 discloses wherein D*peak is proportional to a constant, a wavelength λ of an incident light (Equation 9.103, equation 9.104 and equation 9.105 show detectivity is proportional to wavelength λ;), or the square root of an absorption coefficient α of the absorber, and
wherein D*peak is inversely proportional to Planck's constant h, a speed of light c (Equation 9.103, equation 9.104 and equation 9.105 show detectivity is inversely proportional to Planck's constant h, a speed of light c), or the square root of a thermal generation rate gth.
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to implement the photodetector of Yang et al. with the teaching of Rogalski et al. so that photodiode can be optimized by maximizing the quantum efficiency and minimizing the reverse saturation current (Rogalski et al. Chapter 9 Page 204).
It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. 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. In re Spada, 15 USQP2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, thickness, material and unit information of absorber of Yang et al. as modified by Meyer et al. would inherently have the property of the thickness, material and unit information depending on the IC architecture of specific N stages, absorption coefficient and diffusion lengths because the absorber, hole barrier and electron barrier are made of the materials, which are the same as the absorber, hole barrier and electron barrier as disclosed. Therefore, D*peak will show the same characteristics at satisfying the formulas as best understood, in light of the dimensions needing to be on the same order of dimension as usable for infrared detection. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 3, Yang et al. as modified by Meyer et al. and Rogalski et al., discloses the limitations of claim 1. However, Yang et al. does not disclose wherein d is based on a product of α and a finite diffusion length L of the absorber.
In the similar field of endeavor of photodetector, endeavor of Meyer et al. Figs. 1-16 discloses wherein d is based on a product of α and a finite diffusion length L of the absorber (“the thickness d of the absorbing layer of the photodetector must be comparable to or exceed 1/α.sub.0(λ), where α.sub.0(λ) is the absorption coefficient, and either the minority-carrier diffusion length L.sub.D” ¶ [0050]).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the thickness of the absorber of the photodetector of Yang et al. with the thickness of the absorber of the photodetector of Meyer et al. in order to realize a high QE (Meyer et al. ¶ [0050])
Regarding Claim 4, Yang et al. as modified by Meyer et al. and Rogalski et al. discloses the limitations of claim 3. However, Yang et al. does not disclose wherein d is about 0.035/α when N = 30 and αL=0.07.
In the similar field of endeavor of photodetector, Meyer et al. Figs. 1-16 discloses wherein d is based on a product of an absorption coefficient α of the absorber and a finite diffusion length L of the absorber (“the thickness d of the absorbing layer of the photodetector must be comparable to or exceed 1/α.sub.0(λ), where α.sub.0(λ) is the absorption coefficient, and either the minority-carrier diffusion length L.sub.D ” ¶ [0050]). Furthermore, Yang et al. and Meyer et al. uses the same material for the absorber, hole barrier and electron barrier regions as the instant application.
It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. 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. In re Spada, 15 USQP2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, the thickness d of absorber of Yang et al. as modified by Meyer et al. would inherently have the property of changing thickness depending on the IC architecture specific N stages, absorption coefficient and diffusion lengths because the absorber, hole barrier and electron barrier are made of the materials, which are the same as the absorber, hole barrier and electron barrier as disclosed. See MPEP 2112.01.
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the photodetector of Yang et al. with IC architecture specific N stages, absorption coefficient and diffusion lengths of the photodetector of Meyer et al. in order to realize a high QE (Meyer et al. ¶ [0050])
Regarding Claim 5, Yang et al. as modified by Meyer et al. and Rogalski et al. discloses the limitations of claim 3. However, Yang et al. does not disclose wherein d is about 0.12/α when N = 8 and αL=0.2.
In the similar field of endeavor of photodetector, Meyer et al. Figs. 1-16 discloses wherein d is based on a product of an absorption coefficient α of the absorber and a finite diffusion length L of the absorber (“the thickness d of the absorbing layer of the photodetector must be comparable to or exceed 1/α.sub.0(λ), where α.sub.0(λ) is the absorption coefficient, and either the minority-carrier diffusion length L.sub.D” ¶ [0050]). Furthermore, Yang et al. and Meyer et al. uses the same material for the absorber, hole barrier and electron barrier regions as the instant application.
It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. 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. In re Spada, 15 USQP2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, the thickness d of absorber of Yang et al. as modified by Meyer et al. would inherently have the property of changing thickness depending on the IC architecture specific N stages, absorption coefficient and diffusion lengths because the absorber, hole barrier and electron barrier are made of the materials, which are the same as the absorber, hole barrier and electron barrier as disclosed. See MPEP 2112.01.
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the photodetector of Yang et al. with IC architecture specific N stages, absorption coefficient and diffusion lengths of the photodetector of Meyer et al. in order to realize a high QE (Meyer et al. ¶ [0050])
Regarding Claim 6, Yang et al. as modified by Meyer et al. and Rogalski et al. discloses the limitations of claim 3. However, Yang et al. does not disclose wherein d is about 0.5/α when N = 2 and αL=0.8.
In the similar field of endeavor of photodetector, Meyer et al. Figs. 1-16 discloses wherein d is based on a product of an absorption coefficient α of the absorber and a finite diffusion length L of the absorber (“the thickness d of the absorbing layer of the photodetector must be comparable to or exceed 1/α.sub.0(λ), where α.sub.0(λ) is the absorption coefficient, and either the minority-carrier diffusion length L.sub.D” ¶ [0050]). Furthermore, Yang et al. and Meyer et al. uses the same material for the absorber, hole barrier and electron barrier regions as the instant application.
It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. 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. In re Spada, 15 USQP2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, the thickness d of absorber of Yang et al. as modified by Meyer et al. would inherently have the property of changing thickness depending on the IC architecture specific N stages, absorption coefficient and diffusion lengths because the absorber, hole barrier and electron barrier are made of the materials, which are the same as the absorber, hole barrier and electron barrier as disclosed. See MPEP 2112.01.
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the photodetector of Yang et al. with IC architecture specific N stages, absorption coefficient and diffusion lengths of the photodetector of Meyer et al. in order to realize a high QE (Meyer et al. ¶ [0050])
Regarding Claim 7, Yang et al. as modified by Meyer et al. and Rogalski et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yang et al. Figs. 1-5 further discloses wherein the absorber comprises a semiconductor layer selected from the group consisting of InAs, InAsSb, InGaAs, InGaAsSb, GaSb, GaInSb, AlGaSb, AlGaInSb, AlGaInAsN, GaAs, AlSb, AlAs, AlInSb, AISbAs, AIGaSbAs, and AlInGaSbAs (“the absorption region 320 may comprise one or more semiconductor layers to form type-I QWs or SLs consisting of or comprising Indium-Arsenic (InAs), Indium-Arsenic-Antimony (InAsSb), Indium-Gallium-Arsenic (InGaAs), Indium-Gallium-Arsenic-Antimony (InGaAsSb), Gallium-Antimony (GaSb), Gallium-Indium-Antimony (GaInSb), Aluminum-Gallium-Antimony (AlGaSb), Aluminum-Gallium-Indium-Antimony (AlGaInSb), Gallium-Arsenic (GaAs), Aluminum-Antimony (AlSb), Aluminum-Arsenic (AlAs), Aluminum-Indium-Antimony (AlInSb), Aluminum-Antimony-Arsenic (AlSbAs), Aluminum-Gallium-Antimony-Arsenic (AlGaSbAs), Aluminum-Indium-Gallium-Antimony-Arsenic (AlInGaSbAs), or combinations thereof.” ¶ [0024]).
Regarding Claim 8, Yang et al. as modified by Meyer et al. and Rogalski et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yang et al. Figs. 1-5 further discloses wherein wherein the hole barrier comprises a semiconductor layer selected from the group consisting of InAs, InAsSb, InGaAs, InGaAsSb, GaSb, GaInSb, AlGaSb, AlGaInSb, AlGaInAsP, AlInAsP, GaAs, AlSb, AlAs, AlInSb, AlSbAs, AlGaSbAs, and AlInGaSbAs (“the intraband transport region may comprise one or more semiconductor layers consisting of or comprising InAs, InAsSb, InGaAs, InGaAsSb, GaSb, GaInSb, AlGaSb, AlGaInSb, GaAs, AlSb, AlAs, AlInSb, AlSbAs, AlGaSbAs, AlInGaSbAs, or combinations thereof.” ¶ [0024]).
Regarding Claim 9, Yang et al. as modified by Meyer et al. and Rogalski et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yang et al. Figs. 1-5 further discloses wherein the electron barrier comprises a semiconductor layer selected from the group consisting of InAs, InAsSb, InGaAs, InGaAsSb, GaSb, GaInSb, AlGaSb, AlGaInSb, AlGaInAsP, AlInAsP, GaAs, AlSb, AlAs, AlInSb, AlSbAs, AlGaSbAs, and AlInGaSbAs (“the interband tunneling region may comprise one or more semiconductor layers consisting of or comprising InGaAs, InGaAsSb, GaSb, GaInSb, AlGaSb, AlGaInSb, GaAs, AlSb, AlAs, AlInSb, AlSbAs, AlGaSbAs, AlInGaSbAs, or combinations thereof.” ¶ [0024]).
Regarding Claim 10, Yang et al. as modified by Meyer et al. and Rogalski et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yang et al. Figs. 1-5 further discloses further comprising a substrate upon which the IC stages are disposed, the substrate selected from the group consisting of InAs, InP, GaAs, GaSb, and Si (“The plurality of IC stages may be grown on a substrate selected from the group consisting of InAs, InP, GaAs, GaSb, ZnS, SiC, ZnO, Si, Ge, and sapphire.” ¶ [0032]).
Regarding Claim 11, Yang et al. as modified by Meyer et al. and Rogalski et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yang et al. Figs. 1-5 further discloses wherein the thicknesses d of the absorbers of the NS IC stages are substantially equal (“thickness of the absorber in a cascade stage can be designed to be either the same or different from the adjacent stages, depending on the photon distribution of the radiation source.” ¶ [0018]).
Regarding Claim 12, Yang et al. as modified by Meyer et al. and Rogalski et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yang et al. Figs. 1-5 further discloses wherein the thicknesses d of the absorbers of the NS IC stages are not all equal (“thickness of the absorber in a cascade stage can be designed to be either the same or different from the adjacent stages, depending on the photon distribution of the radiation source.” ¶ [0018]).
Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Rui Q. (US 20160005895 A1) “Yang et al.” in view of Meyer, Jerry R. (US 20180212080 A1) “Meyer et al.” further in view of “Rogalski, Antoni, "Infrared Detectors," Second Edition, 2011, (Chapter 9 Page 204/Page 144 of the NPL submitted)” “Rogalski et al.” further in view of Ravikumar Arvind (US 20140231750 A1) “Ravikumar et al.”.
Regarding Claim 2, Yang et al. as modified by Meyer et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yang et al. does not disclose wherein the range is +50%.
In the similar field of endeavor of photodetector, Ravikumar et al. Figs. 9A-9B discloses wherein the range is +50% (Figs. 9A-9B shows the D* is in the range of +50%).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the photodetector of Yang et al. using the range of peak detectivity of Ravikumar et al. in order to increase photoconductive gain (Ravikumar et al. ¶ [0053]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 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.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 19, closest prior arts of record Yang, Rui Q. (US 20160005895 A1) “Yang et al.”, Meyer, Jerry R. (US 20180212080 A1) “Meyer et al.”, Ravikumar Arvind (US 20140231750 A1) “Ravikumar et al.”. alone or in combination does not teach or fairly suggest, wherein the constant is 0.319 in combination with the other limitations of claim 1
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.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKHEE SARKER-NAG whose telephone number is (703)756-4655. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7:15 AM to 5:30 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, YARA J. GREEN can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/AKHEE SARKER-NAG/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights