DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Applicant
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed on 13 January 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 12 and 13 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okada et al. (U.S. Pub. 2006/0186400).
Claim 1: Okada et al. discloses a detection device, in Fig. 16 and in paragraphs 126-132, comprising:
a substrate (10);
a plurality of first electrodes (11a) arranged on the substrate (10);
an insulating film (11d) provided between the first electrodes (11a) adjacent to each other;
a plurality of photodiodes (11f, 11c and 11g) provided so as to correspond to the first electrodes (11a); and
a second electrode (11e) provided across the photodiodes (11f, 11c and 11g), wherein
the photodiodes (11f, 11c and 11g) each comprise a first carrier transport layer (11f), an active layer (11c), and a second carrier transport layer (11g) stacked on the substrate (10), and
the first carrier transport layer (11f), the active layer (11c), and the second carrier transport layer (11g) are provided so as to cover the first electrodes (11a) and the insulating film (11d) between the adjacent first electrodes (11a),
wherein a width (width of 11d) of the insulating film (11d) is less than a width (width of 11f, 11c and 11g) of each of the photodiodes (11f, 11c and 11g).
Claim 8: Okada et al. discloses the insulating film (11d) can be a cyclo-olefin polymer (paragraphs 130 and 131), and cyclo-olefin polymer is an organic polymer. Therefore, Okada et al. discloses the detection device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the insulating film (11d) is an organic insulating film.
Claim 9: Okada et al. discloses the plurality of first electrodes (11a) made from ITO (paragraph 130), which is a transparent conductive material. Therefore, Okada et al. discloses the detection device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein each first electrode (11a) is made of a light-transmitting conductive material.
Claim 12: Okada et al. discloses the detection device according to claim 1, and, in paragraph 128, further discloses wherein
the second electrode (11e) is a cathode electrode, and
each first electrode (11a) is an anode electrode.
Claim 13: O’Rourke et al. discloses the detection device according to claim 1, and in paragraph 128, further discloses wherein
the first carrier transport layer (11f) is a hole transport layer, and
the second carrier transport layer (11g) is an electron transport layer.
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(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of O’Rourke et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0054097).
Claim 10: Okada et al. discloses the detection device according to claim 1, and in Fig. 16, further discloses wherein
the insulating film (11d) covers peripheries of the first electrodes (11a) and is provided with openings (openings in 11d in which 11c is located) in areas overlapping the first electrodes (11a), and
the first carrier transport layer (11f) is in contact with the first electrodes (11a).
Okada et al. appears not to explicitly disclose the first carrier transport layer is in contact with the first electrodes through the openings.
O’Rourke et al., however, in Figs. 10 and 11 and in paragraphs 20, 23 and 25, discloses the first carrier transport layer (136) is in contact with the first electrodes (120, 122, 124 and 126) through the openings (134).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the disclosure of O’Rourke et al. that is in the same field of endeavor with Okada et al., before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to substitute the first carrier transport layer is in contact with the first electrodes through the openings as disclosed by O’Rourke et al. for the configuration of the first carrier transport layer and the first electrodes disclosed by Okada et al. The substituted components were known in the art, one of ordinary skill could have substituted the elements, and the simple substitution of the first carrier transport layer is in contact with the first electrodes through the openings disclosed by O’Rourke et al. for the configuration of the first carrier transport layer and the first electrodes disclosed by Okada et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely providing a photodiode in a detection device. (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
Claim 11: Okada et al. discloses the detection device according to claim 1, and in Fig. 16, further discloses wherein
the first electrodes (11a), the first carrier transport layer (11f), the active layer (11c), the second carrier transport layer (11g), and the second electrode (11e) are stacked in the order as listed, in areas overlapping the first electrodes (11a),
the insulating film (11d), the first carrier transport layer (11f), the active layer (11c), the second carrier transport layer (11g), and the second electrode (11e) are stacked in the order as listed, and
a height (height of 11d) of the insulating film (11d) is greater than a height (height of 11a) of the first electrodes (11a).
Okada et al. appears not to explicitly disclose the insulating film, the first carrier transport layer, the active layer, the second carrier transport layer, and the second electrode are stacked in the order as listed, in areas not overlapping the first electrodes.
O’Rourke et al. discloses the detection device according to claim 1, and, in Fig. 14 and in paragraphs 20 and 25-28, further discloses wherein the insulating film (128), the first carrier transport layer (136), the active layer (138), the second carrier transport layer (140), and the second electrode (142) are stacked in the order as listed, in areas not overlapping the first electrodes (120, 122, 124 and 126).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the disclosure of O’Rourke et al. that is in the same field of endeavor with Okada et al., before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to substitute the insulating film, the first carrier transport layer, the active layer, the second carrier transport layer, and the second electrode are stacked in the order as listed, in areas not overlapping the first electrodes as disclosed by O’Rourke et al. for the configuration of the insulating film, the first carrier transport layer, the active layer, the second carrier transport layer, and the second electrode disclosed by Okada et al. The substituted components were known in the art, one of ordinary skill could have substituted the elements, and the simple substitution of the insulating film, the first carrier transport layer, the active layer, the second carrier transport layer, and the second electrode are stacked in the order as listed, in areas not overlapping the first electrodes disclosed by O’Rourke et al. for the configuration of the insulating film, the first carrier transport layer, the active layer, the second carrier transport layer, and the second electrode disclosed by Okada et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely providing a photodiode in a detection device. (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 8-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JOHN LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/J.L/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights