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 .
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for specific operating band, does not reasonably provide enablement for all operating bands including unbounded bands. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to unbounded operating band the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Applicant has not shown enablement for a device that can detect all wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. The scope of the claim recites operating band but does not set forth an operation band. This covers all operating bands including bands that cover all electromagnetic radiation. Whereas applicant show two peak wavelength regions figure 2a which is less than all wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 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. Recitation of the second band covering the first band over all of the energy levels of an operating band of the sensor not covered by the first band is not supported.
Does not state it covers all energies of an operating band instead it states in may extend the overall operating band but does not cover all energies.
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 1-8 and 10-12 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.
Recitation of: the second band covering the first band over all of the energy levels of an operating band of the sensor not covered by the first band is functional. Beyond the specific materials recites in claim 11 applicant has not set forth what material accomplish the recites function of claim 1 ( See mpep 2173.05 g) The office has already provided the materials of claim 11 thus office is unclear what accomplishes the outcome since applicant asserts that the limitation is not explicitly taught.
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) 1-8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel 11063164.
a. As to claims 1 and 11, Engel teaches figures 1 and 10 a substrate layer item 107 or 1001; and a layered sensor layer atop the substrate layer; wherein the layered sensor layer includes: a photocurrent generation spectrum conductive layer (item 106 1006 or 1004); and at least one middle layer located on the photocurrent generation spectrum conductive layer (item 105 and 1005);
Engel does no teach a top transparent contact. Though figure 10 teaches a n-type flake p-type flake separated by a dichalcogenide.
Transparent contacts and solar cells were known at the time of filing
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a top transparent contact to extract energy from the cell.
With respect to the materials and 11, for the graphene Engel teaches graphene, graphene oxide, black phosphorous, hexagonal boron nitride, and white phosphorous. while the dichalcogenide Dichalcogenides like MoS.sub.2, WS.sub.2, MoSe.sub.2, WSe.sub.2; Semiconducting Dichalcogenides: MoTe.sub.2 WTe.sub.2, ZrS.sub.2, ZrSe.sub.2 Metallic Dichalcogenides: NbSe.sub.2, NbS.sub.2, TaS.sub.2, TiS.sub.2, NiSe.sub.2; and Layered Semiconductors: GaSe, GaTe, InSe, B.sub.2, Se.sub.3.
Thus absent some unexpected result and the limited number of choices would have been obvious try each combination based on the improved results of graphene MoTe.2 and black phosphorous it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use MoTe.sub.2 as the “middle layer” and black phosphorous as the photocurrent layer and the transparent layer as graphene.
These must meet the limitations of claim 1: the second band covering the first band over all of the energy levels of an operating band of the sensor not covered by the first band since claim 11 only further limits claim 1 and the materials must accomplish the same thing.
b. As to claim 2 and 10, Engel does not explicitly teach further comprising an electrical circuit connecting the transparent conductive layer and the photocurrent generation spectrum conductive layer.
However, to operate solar cell it was known to operate by connecting the n side to the p side the circuit include controllers to direct the power to batteries or systems needing power.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an electric circuit including a controller where the circuit is connected to the n-type and p-type.
c. As to claim 3 and 4, Applicant claims both wherein the transparent conductive layer is adjacent the substrate and wherein the photocurrent generation spectrum conductive layer is adjacent the substrate.
However, there are only two ways of making it one where the transparent conductive is adjacent and one where the photocurrent. Further reversing them would not have affected the operation Thus either would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to either form the transparent layer or the photocurrent layer adjacent the substrate.
d. As to claim 5-6, The materials of Engel make a working device, thus at some temperature I all the layers are electrically conductive since it operates.
The band gap of black phosphorous is 0.3 eV which is less than the 1.1o eV of MoTe2
e. As to claim 7, resulting from claims 5-6 and 11, the device would inherently be a Van der Waals heterostructure.
f. As to claim 8 Engel teaches 2D materials for the both the photocurrent and middle layer (column 27) and background. These are inherently only a few nm thick.
g. As to claim 12, Engel does not explicitly teach silicon as a substrate. However, silicon is a well-known and conventional substrate and enables integration with a wide range of technology.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the device on a silicon substrate, to enable integration with silicon devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The response in non-compliant. Applicant does not address the entirety of the rejection. The office has given applicant the same materials are cited in the specification and claim 11 . Thus, the functional outcome of claim 1 must be the same. Therefore, the second band covering the first band over all of the energy levels of an operating band of the sensor not covered by the first band must be inherent since band absorption is a function of the material and if the materials are the same the outcome is the same. Applicant does not explain why modified Engl does not perform the same function given modified Engel teaches the same material.
Changing how the functional recitation to something that is not ipsis verbis recited in the reference does not overcome the reference since the functional outcome would be inherent to the material. If it is not inherent applicant has not set forth sufficiently how the function is accomplished.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L REAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-2408. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am-4:00 pm 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, William F. Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MATTHEW L. REAMES/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/MATTHEW L REAMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896