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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Information disclosure statements filed 28 November 2022 and 18 June 2024 have been fully considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because FIG. 2B includes a reference numeral 228-1 pointing to an element corresponding to 228-3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 212, 220, 224, 228, 232, and 236. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of claims 9-11, “wherein the detector further comprises one or more detection layers,” “wherein the detector further comprises one or more of: electric field confinement layers and compositional gradient layers,” and, “wherein the doped regions reach the one or more detection layers,” respectively must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites the limitation, “a imaging device.” The appears to contain a typographical error and may be corrected as, “an imaging device.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation, “wherein the detector further comprises one or more detection layers.” It is unclear how the one or more detection layers are distinguished from the claimed detection region, or how said one or more detection layers are integrated into the claimed imaging device.
Claim 10 recites the limitation, “wherein the detector further comprises one or more of: electric field confinement layers and compositional gradient layers.” It is unclear how electric field confinement layers compositional gradient layers are integrated into the claimed imaging device.
Claim 11 is rejected for merely containing the flaws of the parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maruyama et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0043677, hereinafter Maruyama ‘677).
With respect to claim 1, Maruyama ‘677 teaches (FIGs. 1 and 18A-21) an imaging device as claimed, comprising:
a detector (10P) to detect light representing an object to be imaged, the detector comprising a semiconductor wafer (11) divided into an array of detector cells (P) ([0050-0051, 0056]); and
an image processor (10113) coupled to the detector (10P) to generate image data based on the light detected at the detector ([0115]); and
wherein each detector cell (P) comprises:
a detection region (10A) of the semiconductor wafer (11) ([0056]);
a dopant doped into the semiconductor wafer (11) in a sub-cell pattern having at least two spaced apart doped regions (10AA), the dopant to generate a signal based on light received in the detection region (10A) of the detector cell (P) ([0060]);
a metal contact (14) joining the at least two doped regions (10AA) ([0056]); and
a signal processing circuit (312) coupled to the metal contact (14) to transmit the signal to the image processor (10113) ([0106]).
With respect to claim 2, Maruyama ‘677 teaches wherein the semiconductor wafer (11) comprises indium phosphide, and wherein the dopant comprises zinc ([0057]).
With respect to claim 3, Maruyama ‘677 teaches wherein a minority carrier diffusion length of the semiconductor wafer (11) is in a range of about 10 μm to about 140 μm ([0057]).
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 minority carrier diffusion length of the semiconductor wafer would inherently have the properties of a range of about 10 μm to about 140 μm and about 80 μm because the semiconductor wafer is made of indium phosphide, which is the same material as the semiconductor wafer as disclosed.
With respect to claim 4, Maruyama ‘677 teaches wherein the at least two spaced apart doped regions (10AA) are equidistant from a central point ([0060, 0105]).
With respect to claim 5, Maruyama ‘677 teaches wherein the at least two spaced apart doped regions (10AA) form a linearly extending pattern extending substantially across a length of the detector cell ([0060, 0105]).
With respect to claim 6, Maruyama ‘677 teaches (FIGs. 1 and 18A-21) a imaging device as claimed, comprising:
a detector (10P) to detect light representing an object to be imaged, the detector comprising a semiconductor wafer (11) divided into an array of detector cells (P) ([0050-0051, 0056]); and
an image processor (10113) coupled to the detector (10P) to generate image data based on the light detected at the detector ([0115]); and
wherein each detector cell (P) comprises:
a detection region (12 within P) of the semiconductor wafer (11) ([0056]);
a signal generation sub-region (10A) of the detection region (12 within P), the signal generation sub-region to generate a signal based on light received in the detection region of the detector cell (P), wherein the signal is generated at doped regions (10AA) of the signal generation sub-region, and wherein the doped regions form a sub-cell pattern within the signal generation sub-region ([0060]);
a metal contact (14) connected to the doped regions (10AA) ([0056]); and
a signal processing circuit (312) coupled to the metal contact (14) to transmit the signal received at the detector cell (P) to the image processor (10113) ([0106]).
With respect to claim 7, Maruyama ‘677 teaches wherein an area of the sub-cell pattern is less than an area of the signal generation sub-region (10A) ([0060]).
With respect to claim 8, Maruyama ‘677 teaches wherein the semiconductor wafer (11) comprises indium phosphide, and wherein the doped regions (10AA) comprise zinc diffused into the indium phosphide ([0058-0059]).
With respect to claim 9, as best understood by Examiner, Maruyama ‘677 teaches wherein the detector (10P) further comprises one or more detection layers (a layer of a superlattice when semiconductor wafer 11 is formed as a superlattice) ([0057]).
With respect to claim 10, as best understood by Examiner, Maruyama ‘677 teaches wherein the detector (10P) further comprises one or more of: electric field confinement layers and compositional gradient layers (another layer of a superlattice when semiconductor wafer 11 is formed as a superlattice) to facilitate electrical charge transfer from the one or more detection layers (a layer of a superlattice when semiconductor wafer 11 is formed as a superlattice) to the doped regions (10AA) ([0057, 0060]).
With respect to claim 11, as best understood by Examiner, Maruyama ‘677 teaches wherein the doped regions (10AA) reach the one or more detection layers (a layer of a superlattice when semiconductor wafer 11 is formed as a superlattice) ([0057, 0060]).
With respect to claim 12, Maruyama ‘677 teaches wherein a minority carrier diffusion length of the semiconductor wafer (11) is in a range of about 10 μm to about 140 μm ([0057]).
With respect to claim 13, Maruyama ‘677 teaches wherein the minority carrier diffusion length of the semiconductor wafer (11) is about 80 μm ([0057]).
With respect to claim 15, Maruyama ‘677 teaches wherein the sub-cell pattern comprises at least two spaced apart doped regions (10AA) equidistant from a central point ([0060, 0105]).
With respect to claim 16, Maruyama ‘677 teaches wherein the sub-cell pattern comprises at least two spaced apart doped regions (10AA) forming a line ([0060, 0105]).
With respect to claim 17, Maruyama ‘677 teaches wherein the sub-cell pattern comprises a serpentine configuration ([0060, 0105]).
With respect to claim 18, Maruyama ‘677 teaches (FIGs. 1 and 18A-21) a method, in an imaging device, of imaging an object, as claimed, the method comprising:
detecting, at a detector (10P) of the imaging device, light representing the object ([0050, 0106-0107, 0117-0118]);
for each detector cell (P) of a plurality of detector cells (10P) of the detector:
generating, at at least one of a plurality of doped regions (10AA) of the detector cell (P), a signal representing light incident on the detector cell ([0051, 0060, 0106-0107, 0117-0118]);
wherein signals generated by any of the plurality of doped regions (10AA) of the detector cell (P) contribute to the signal representing light incident on the detector cell ([0051, 0060, 0106-0107, 0117-0118]); and
generating, based on the signals generated at each of the plurality of detector cells (P), image data representing the object ([0051, 0106-0107, 0117-0118]).
With respect to claim 19, Maruyama ‘677 teaches further comprising outputting the image data ([0106-0107, 0117-0118]).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama ‘677 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Gravrand et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0111580, hereinafter Gravrand ‘580).
With respect to claim 14, Maruyama ‘677 teaches the device as described in claim 6 above with the exception of the additional limitation wherein a minority carrier diffusion length of the semiconductor wafer is greater than half of a pitch between respective signal generation sub-regions of adjacent detector cells.
However, Gravrand ‘580 teaches an imaging device having a pitch between respective signal generation sub-regions of adjacent detector cells of less than 15 μm, for example, 12 μm or 10 μm, as a pitch for arrays of photodiodes of small dimensions ([0136, 0152]). A minority carrier diffusion length of the semiconductor wafer (11) of Maruyama ‘677 is greater than half of the aforementioned pitch of Gravrand ‘580.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a minority carrier diffusion length of the semiconductor wafer of Maruyama ‘677 greater than half of a pitch between respective signal generation sub-regions of adjacent detector cells as taught by Gravrand ‘580 as a pitch for arrays of photodiodes of small dimensions.
Further, such a modification would have involved a mere change in size or proportion of a component. A change in size or proportion is generally recognized as being with the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Popovic et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0150069) teaches an imaging device comprising a sub-cell pattern.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher M. Roland whose telephone number is (571)270-1271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-7:00PM Eastern.
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 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.
/C.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893