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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/15/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains less than 50 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guiheen et al. (2009/0191389) in view of Demiryont et al. (5,234,748).
Regarding claim 1, Guiheen discloses a light absorbing element (Figure 1, 100, transparent conductor; [0022]), comprising: a metal layer (102, transparent substrate; [0023]); and a light absorbing carbon layer (104, transparent conductive coating; [0022, 0025]) disposed between the metal layer and the first surface of the phase match composite layer (Figure 1), the light absorbing carbon layer having a first surface (bottom surface of 104, transparent coating) and an opposing second surface separated by a thickness (top surface of 104, transparent coating).
Guiheen fails to teach a phase match composite layer comprising a composite dielectric film with constituents having differing refractive indices, the phase match composite layer having a first surface and an opposing second surface separated by a thickness. Guiheen and Demiryont are related because both teach an optical element with an anti-reflective coating.
Demiryont teaches an optical element comprising: a phase match composite layer (Figure 1, 22, anti-reflective coating) comprising a composite dielectric film (22, zone, 23, gradient zone, 24, zone) with constituents having differing refractive indices (at least col 7 lines 6-22), the phase match composite layer having a first surface (18, surface) and an opposing second surface separated by a thickness (26, surface).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Guiheen to incorporate the teachings of Demiryont and provide a phase match composite layer comprising a composite dielectric film with constituents having differing refractive indices, the phase match composite layer having a first surface and an opposing second surface separated by a thickness. Doing so would allow for improved anti-reflection for the light absorbing element without sacrificing transparency in the visible wavelength.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Guiheen teaches the light absorbing element according to claim 1, wherein the phase match composite layer comprises a layer of silicon oxynitride of a first composition adjacent to the first surface, a layer of silicon oxynitride of a second composition adjacent to the second surface, wherein the second composition has more oxygen than the first composition (Demiryont: at least col 7 lines 6-22).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Guiheen teaches the light absorbing element according to claim 2, wherein the phase match composite layer comprises graded composition defining the thickness of the phase match composite layer, the graded composition increasing in an amount of oxygen along a thickness direction from the first surface to the opposing second surface (Demiryont: at least col 7 lines 6-22).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Guiheen teaches the light absorbing element according to claim 2, wherein the phase match composite layer comprises graded composition defining the thickness of the phase match composite layer, the graded composition decreasing in an amount of nitrogen along a thickness direction from the first surface to the opposing second surface (Demiryont: at least col 7 lines 6-22).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Guiheen teaches the light absorbing element according to claim 2, wherein the phase match composite layer comprises graded composition defining the thickness of the phase match composite layer, the first surface consists essentially of silicon nitride and the second surface consists essentially of silicon oxide (Demiryont: at least col 7 lines 6-22).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Guiheen discloses the light absorbing element according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the phase match composite layer has a thickness in a range from 50 to 200 nanometers, the light absorbing carbon layer has a thickness in a range from 50 to 250 nanometers, and the metal layer has a thickness in a range from 50 to 150 nanometers.
However, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the thicknesses of each layer, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). Doing so would allow for adjustability to the desired target wavelength to modulate along with retaining a compact size.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guiheen et al. (2009/0191389) in view of Demiryont et al. (5,234,748), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harding et al. (4,309,261).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Guiheen teaches the light absorbing element according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the light absorbing carbon layer comprises a layer of metal and carbon of a first composition adjacent to the first surface, a layer of metal and carbon of a second composition adjacent to the second surface, wherein the second composition has more carbon than the first composition. The modified Guiheen and Harding are related because each teach a light absorbing element.
Harding teaches a light absorbing element wherein the light absorbing carbon layer comprises a layer of metal and carbon of a first composition adjacent to the first surface (col 1 lines 29-40 teach a metal carbide absorbing film; col 1 lines 34-36 teach the interface surface has more metal atoms), a layer of metal and carbon of a second composition adjacent to the second surface (col 1 lines 34-36 teach the outer surface of the film has less metal atoms), wherein the second composition has more carbon than the first composition (col 1 lines 34-36 teach the outer surface of the film has less metal atoms).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Guiheen to incorporate the teachings of Harding and provide wherein the light absorbing carbon layer comprises a layer of metal and carbon of a first composition adjacent to the first surface, a layer of metal and carbon of a second composition adjacent to the second surface, wherein the second composition has more carbon than the first composition. Doing so would allow for improved variation in refractive index and improved selective absorption.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Guiheen teaches the light absorbing element according to claim 6, wherein the light absorbing carbon layer comprises a graded carbon-metal composition defining the thickness of the light absorbing carbon layer, the graded composition increasing in an amount of carbon along a thickness direction from the first surface to the opposing second surface (Harding: col 1 lines 29-40 teach a metal carbide absorbing film; col 1 lines 34-36 teach the interface surface has more metal atoms and the outer surface has less metal atoms).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Guiheen teaches the light absorbing element according to claim 6, wherein the light absorbing carbon layer comprises a graded carbon-metal composition defining the thickness of the light absorbing carbon layer, the graded composition decreasing in an amount of metal along a thickness direction from the first surface to the opposing second surface (Harding: col 1 lines 29-40 teach a metal carbide absorbing film; col 1 lines 34-36 teach the interface surface has more metal atoms and the outer surface has less metal atoms; Examiner notes the cited "first surface" and "second surface" can be switched to read on the claim).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Guiheen teaches the light absorbing element according to claim 6, wherein the light absorbing carbon layer comprises a graded carbon-metal composition defining the thickness of the light absorbing carbon layer, the first surface consists essentially of metal, and the second surface consists essentially of carbon (Harding: col 1 lines 29-40 teach a metal carbide absorbing film; col 1 lines 34-36 teach the interface surface has more metal atoms and the outer surface has less metal atoms).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guiheen et al. (2009/0191389) in view of Demiryont et al. (5,234,748), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dasbach (2023/0400224).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Guiheen teaches the light absorbing element according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the light absorbing element reflects less than 10% incident light for all wavelengths from 400 nanometers to 1200 nanometers. The modified Guiheen and Dasbach are related because each teach a light absorbing element.
Dasbach teaches a light absorbing element wherein the light absorbing element reflects less than 10% incident light for all wavelengths from 400 nanometers to 1200 nanometers (at least Figure 3; [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Guiheen to incorporate the teachings of Dasbach and provide wherein the light absorbing element reflects less than 10% incident light for all wavelengths from 400 nanometers to 1200 nanometers. Doing so would allow for effective absorption and anti-reflection for the light absorbing element.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guiheen et al. (2009/0191389) in view of Demiryont et al. (5,234,748), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (2015/0316290).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Guiheen teaches the light absorbing element according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the phase match composite layer further comprises a layer of niobium pentoxide forming the first surface. The modified Guiheen and Liu are related because both teach a light absorbing element.
Liu teaches a light absorbing element wherein the phase match composite layer further comprises a layer of niobium pentoxide forming the first surface (Figure 1, 41, higher refractive index dielectric layer; [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Guiheen to incorporate the teachings of Liu and provide wherein the phase match composite layer further comprises a layer of niobium pentoxide forming the first surface. Doing so would allow for improved anti-reflection to be observed by the light absorbing element.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guiheen et al. (2009/0191389) in view of Demiryont et al. (5,234,748), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Welser et al. (9,590,133).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Guiheen discloses the light absorbing element according to claim 1, but fails to teach a layer of silicon carbide separating the light absorbing carbon layer from the phase match composite layer. The modified Guiheen and Welser are related because both teach a light absorbing element.
Welser teaches a light absorbing element comprising a layer of silicon carbide separating the light absorbing carbon layer from the phase match composite layer (Figure 7, 735, silicon carbide window, is provided between 710, front AR coating, and 746, Si GE absorber layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Guiheen to incorporate the teachings of Welser and provide a layer of silicon carbide separating the light absorbing carbon layer from the phase match composite layer. Doing so would allow for improved absorption and anti-reflection observed by the optical device.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Guiheen discloses the light absorbing element according to claim 12, but fails to teach wherein the phase match composite layer has a thickness in a range from 50 to 200 nanometers, the light absorbing carbon layer has a thickness in a range from 50 to 250 nanometers, the metal layer has a thickness in a range from 50 to 150 nanometers, and the layer of silicon carbide has a thickness in a range from 10 to 20 nanometers.
However, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the thicknesses of each layer to fall within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). Doing so would allow for adjustability to the desired target wavelength to modulate along with retaining a compact size.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guiheen et al. (2009/0191389) in view of Demiryont et al. (5,234,748), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hachtmann et al. (2014/0367250).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Guiheen discloses the light absorbing element according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the metal layer comprises a titanium tungsten alloy. The modified Guiheen and Hachtmann are related because both teach a light absorbing element.
Hachtmann teaches a light absorbing element wherein the metal layer comprises a titanium tungsten alloy ([0037] teaches a substrate made of tungsten, titanium, and combinations or alloys thereof).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Guiheen to incorporate the teachings of Hachtmann and provide wherein the metal layer comprises a titanium tungsten alloy. Doing so would allow from improved conductivity and absorption.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guiheen et al. (2009/0191389) in view of Demiryont et al. (5,234,748), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujdala et al. (2012/0318358).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Guiheen discloses the light absorbing element according to claim 1, but fails to teach an optical sensor article, comprising: a silicon substrate; a light sensor disposed in or on the silicon substrate; and the light absorbing element disposed on or in the silicon substrate and adjacent to the light sensor. The modified Guiheen and Fujdala are related because both teach a light absorbing element.
Fujdala teaches an optical sensor article (Figure 3; [0032]), comprising: a silicon substrate (10, substrate; [0023]); a light sensor disposed in or on the silicon substrate (at least Abstract teaches a solar cell with a thin film photovoltaic absorber material, thus interpreted to include a light sensor); and the light absorbing element disposed on or in the silicon substrate and adjacent to the light sensor (Figure 3, 20, electrode layer, 30, absorber layer, 40, buffer layer, 50, transparent conductive layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Guiheen to incorporate the teachings of Fujdala and provide an optical sensor article, comprising: a silicon substrate; a light sensor disposed in or on the silicon substrate; and the light absorbing element disposed on or in the silicon substrate and adjacent to the light sensor. Doing so would allow for a highly efficient antireflective and absorptive solar collected/cell.
Claims 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guiheen et al. (2009/0191389) in view of Fisher et al. (2019/0242178).
Regarding claim 20, Guiheen discloses a method of forming a light absorbing element (Figure 1, 100, transparent conductor; [0022]), comprising, depositing a metal layer (102, transparent substrate; [0023]); depositing a light absorbing carbon layer on the metal layer (104, transparent conductive coating; [0022, 0025]).
Guiheen fails to teach depositing a layer of silicon nitride onto the carbon layer; depositing a gradient layer of silicon nitride and silicon oxide onto the layer of silicon nitride by reducing an amount of nitrogen and increasing an amount of oxygen during the depositing a gradient layer step; and depositing a layer of silicon oxide onto the gradient layer, forming a phase match composite layer. Guiheen and Fisher are related because both teach a method of forming a light absorbing element.
Fisher teaches a method of forming a light absorbing element comprising: depositing a layer of silicon nitride onto the carbon layer (at least Figure 5, 550, fifth dielectric layer; [0043]); depositing a gradient layer of silicon nitride and silicon oxide onto the layer of silicon nitride by reducing an amount of nitrogen and increasing an amount of oxygen during the depositing a gradient layer step (504, second film; [0043]); and depositing a layer of silicon oxide onto the gradient layer, forming a phase match composite layer (480, overcoat; [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Guiheen to incorporate the teachings of Fisher and provide depositing a layer of silicon nitride onto the carbon layer; depositing a gradient layer of silicon nitride and silicon oxide onto the layer of silicon nitride by reducing an amount of nitrogen and increasing an amount of oxygen during the depositing a gradient layer step; and depositing a layer of silicon oxide onto the gradient layer, forming a phase match composite layer. Doing so would allow for improved anti-reflection for the light absorbing element without sacrificing transparency in the visible wavelength.
Regarding claim 22, the modified Guiheen discloses the method according to claim 20, but fails to teach wherein the phase match composite layer has a thickness in a range from 50 to 200 nanometers, the light absorbing carbon layer has a thickness in a range from 50 to 250 nanometers, and the metal layer has a thickness in a range from 50 to 150 nanometers.
However, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the thicknesses of each layer to fall within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). Doing so would allow for adjustability to the desired target wavelength to modulate along with retaining a compact size.
Regarding claim 23, the modified Guiheen teaches the method according to claim 20, wherein the depositing a gradient layer step comprises depositing a gradient layer of silicon nitride and silicon oxide onto the layer of silicon nitride, by depositing silicon in an oxygen and nitrogen ambient and changing relative amounts of oxygen and nitrogen from a low oxygen to nitrogen ratio to a high oxygen to nitrogen ratio during the depositing a gradient layer step (Fisher: [0043]).
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guiheen et al. (2009/0191389) in view of Fisher et al. (2019/0242178), as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Harding et al. (4,309,261).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Guiheen teaches the method according to claim 20, but fails to teach wherein the depositing a light absorbing carbon layer step comprises depositing a gradient layer of metal and carbon onto the metal layer, by reducing an amount of metal and increasing an amount of carbon during the depositing a light absorbing carbon layer step. The modified Guiheen and Harding are related because both teach a method of forming a light absorbing element.
Harding teaches a method of forming a light absorbing element wherein the depositing a light absorbing carbon layer step comprises depositing a gradient layer of metal and carbon onto the metal layer, by reducing an amount of metal and increasing an amount of carbon during the depositing a light absorbing carbon layer step (col 1 lines 29-40 teach a metal carbide absorbing film; col 1 lines 34-36 teach the interface surface has more metal atoms and the outer surface has less metal atoms).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Guiheen to incorporate the teachings of Harding and provide wherein the depositing a light absorbing carbon layer step comprises depositing a gradient layer of metal and carbon onto the metal layer, by reducing an amount of metal and increasing an amount of carbon during the depositing a light absorbing carbon layer step. Doing so would allow for improved variation in refractive index and improved selective absorption.
Regarding claim 25, the modified Guiheen teaches the method according to claim 20, but fails to teach wherein the depositing a light absorbing carbon layer step comprises depositing a gradient layer of metal and carbon onto the metal layer, by co-depositing metal and carbon simultaneously and changing relative deposition rates of the metal and carbon from a low carbon to metal rate ratio to a high carbon to metal rate ratio during the depositing a light absorbing carbon layer step. The modified Guiheen and Harding are related because both teach a method of forming a light absorbing element.
Harding teaches a method of forming a light absorbing element wherein the depositing a light absorbing carbon layer step comprises depositing a gradient layer of metal and carbon onto the metal layer, by co-depositing metal and carbon simultaneously and changing relative deposition rates of the metal and carbon from a low carbon to metal rate ratio to a high carbon to metal rate ratio during the depositing a light absorbing carbon layer step (col 1 lines 29-40 teach a metal carbide absorbing film; col 1 lines 34-36 teach the interface surface has more metal atoms and the outer surface has less metal atoms).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Guiheen to incorporate the teachings of Harding and provide wherein the depositing a light absorbing carbon layer step comprises depositing a gradient layer of metal and carbon onto the metal layer, by co-depositing metal and carbon simultaneously and changing relative deposition rates of the metal and carbon from a low carbon to metal rate ratio to a high carbon to metal rate ratio during the depositing a light absorbing carbon layer step. Doing so would allow for improved variation in refractive index and improved selective absorption.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 and 21 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach the limitations of claims 17-19, along with the structural limitations positively recited in claims 1 and 16, and claim 21 along with the structural limitations positively recited in claim 20, in a manner that would be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fleagle (11,525,944), Poutous (2018/0238739), Dirks (2018/0050959), Congreve (2014/0224329), Kennedy (2010/0313875), Yeh (2008/0020319), Yeh (2010/0239979), Yoshikawa (2006/0269731), Steiner (6,133,618), Nagayama (5,831,321) disclose relevant light absorbers or optical elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BALRAM T PARBADIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872