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
This office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on December 22, 2025. Claims 1 and 3 have been amended. Claim 19 has been added. Claims 13-18 have been canceled. Currently claims 1-12 and 19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 filed on 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reason is set forth below,
Regarding Amended Claim 1, it is unclear how the new formulas as amended, differentiate between the prior art disclosure. It is understood from reading Applicant's specification, that in order to arrive at a structure which can satisfy the newly amended formulas, one has available to them, several concrete and finite characteristics of the ICIP device. Those 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 para 0033-0035), the number of multiple stack unit (use the relevant language), 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. So, at this point, it is unclear what differentiates the similar information presented by the prior art from the newly amended formulas.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-12 and 19 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.
In the instant case, with regard to the newly amended formulas in claim 1, it is unclear from the disclosure how the thickness, material type, and unit number repetitions can arrive from the prior art showing to this assertedly differentiated structure that is characterized by a formula, which lacks clarity in understanding the difference between itself and the prior art. In the specification ¶ [0033-0035] discloses the thicknesses of the absorber, electron barrier and hole barrier layers and Meyer discloses thickness values and materials for each layer within the disclosed ranges.
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.
Claim 1 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.
The amended formulas in claim 1, set forth a vague requirement, which is not understood in view of the disclosed available variables (material type, thickness, unit number), it is unclear what differentiates the instant application from the prior art, as the formula does not set forth concrete aspects of the multi-stage ICIP. The formula is merely a behavior of the material stack, but does not quantify any particular structural feature that is novel to the ICIP device. Therefore, it is unclear and the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claims 2-12 and 19 inherit the deficiencies of the independent claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 19 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.”.
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 wherein N, is greater than one and 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 k of an incident light, or the square root of an absorption coefficient a 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 wherein N, is greater than one (“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]) and 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 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.
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]).
Regarding Claim 3, Yang et al. as modified by Meyer 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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]).
Regarding Claim 19, Yang et al. as modified by Meyer et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. However, Yang et al. does not disclose wherein the constant is 0.319.
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 and the constant 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.
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 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]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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