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 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As to claim 7, The term electronic device is merely a generic term “nonce word” and adds no additional structural details nor is an implied. A photodiode is an electronic device it is a diode.
Electronic device definition- An electronic device is equipment that operates by controlling the flow of electrons or other electrically charged particles in circuits, signal processors and other semiconductor devices. To which a photodiode does thus it is an electronic device.
Electronic device does not imply any additional structure nor does the specification point to any specific details.
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) 1-4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isobe (20110049588).
As to claims 1 and 2, Isobe teaches A photodiode comprising: a semiconductor layer including a first area (figure 1b or 7b 158), a second area (item 164), and a third area (item 162);a first electrode electrically connected to the first area (corresponding item 17); and a second electrode electrically connected to the third area (item 174), wherein the first area includes a p-type semiconductor area (item 158), the third area includes an n-type semiconductor area (item 162). Isobe further indicates cost consideration are important in defining the thickness paragraph 274). Isobe teaches polysilicon paragraph 66:
Note that in this embodiment, the case of using a single crystal silicon substrate for an integrated circuit as a bonding substrate is described; however, an embodiment of the invention disclosed is not construed as being limited to this structure. For example, a solar-grade single crystal silicon substrate may be used. Alternatively, a polycrystalline semiconductor substrate including a polycrystalline silicon substrate can be used. Note that, in considering characteristics of the photoelectric conversion element to be formed, it is preferable that a single crystal semiconductor substrate be used.
Isobe wherein the semiconductor layer comprises polysilicon,
Isobe teaches thickness of approximately 10 nm to 1000 nm paragraph 75).
Isobe does not explicitly teach and the thickness of the semiconductor layer is 50 nanometers to 800 nanometers or more specifically 200 to 500 nm.
However, applicant has shown no unexpected results for the thickness.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time filing to optimize the thickness to be 200 to 500 nm to optimize the total absorption while minimizing the cost.
Isobe teaches wherein the photodiode is configured to detect at least one of ultraviolet rays, visible rays, and near infrared (NIR) rays it is a photodetector for light an implies visible light paragraph 138. Further this is merely reciting the intended usage not a physical structure. The structure is otherwise the same thus reading on the claim.
As to claim 3, Isobe teaches the device is on a main surface of a substrate (item 100) and the main surface of defines a laminate direction ( stacking direction of items 164 and 112) on which the semiconductor layer is formed a horizontal direction orthogonal to the laminate direction and the first area, the second area, and the third area are disposed in the horizontal direction (see figures.
As to claim 4, Isobe teaches the width of region 164 is 3 to 10 microns paragraph 255
As to claim 7 Isobe teaches an electronic device that detects light (figure 21c and 25 B)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts Claim 7 is directed to an electronic device (such as a camera, a sensor system, or a mobile terminal) that utilizes the photodiode as a constituent part, however electronic device implies no additional structure. The office finds it acceptable its element necessarily adds additional structure for example Claim 1: A LED. Claim 2 a display comprising the LED. The display implies additional structure. an electronic device does not. An ordinary skilled artisan would consider the photodiode to be an electronic device.
With respect to the 103, Applicant asserts:
However, Isobe's entire disclosure is rooted in the use of a single-crystal semiconductor layer, specifically through an SOI (Silicon-On-Insulator) structure and a complex transfer process (e.g., paragraph [0023], [0084]).
This is not found convincing ). Isobe teaches polysilicon paragraph 66:
Note that in this embodiment, the case of using a single crystal silicon substrate for an integrated circuit as a bonding substrate is described; however, an embodiment of the invention disclosed is not construed as being limited to this structure. For example, a solar-grade single crystal silicon substrate may be used. Alternatively, a polycrystalline semiconductor substrate including a polycrystalline silicon substrate can be used. Note that, in considering characteristics of the photoelectric conversion element to be formed, it is preferable that a single crystal semiconductor substrate be used.
With respect NIR detection Applicant claims are not drawn to NIR exclusively thus it is not commensurate. Detection of NIR is an intended use of the device and does not structural limit the device. We define a device by it structure not by what the device does. Further even if they were applicant has shown unexpected result. Isobe uses it for at least visible light and applicant has shown no unexpected results at any wavelength especially visible or UV. There maybe benefit using the device in a NIR detection but that does not make the device novel or inventive. At best it would make the use of the such a device for NIR detection non-obvious not the device itself. It is also pointed unexpected results have to be shown MPEP 716.02a.
With respect to Simplified Manufacturing and Reduced Cost are not evidence of non-obviousness. Isobe already teaches the polysilicon device and the range of thicknesses of 10nm to 1000nm applicant has not shown any unexpected results for the thicknesses of 50nm to 800nm. Further applicant does not claim a process and even if applicant did, how one makes a device is treated as product by process and does not limit the structure. Thus, the claim is still deemed obvious over Isobe.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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