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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: support for claims 4 and 22 is not found.
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 4 and 22 are 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
wherein the length of the second area is 10_micrometers to 20 micrometers and wherein a width of the semiconductor layer is 60 micrometers to 100 micrometers is not supported. Applicant only has support for wherein the length of the second area is 2 micrometers or more.
With respect to changing numerical range limitations, the analysis must take into account which ranges one skilled in the art would consider inherently supported by the discussion in the original disclosure. In the decision in In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), the ranges described in the original specification included a range of “25%- 60%” and specific examples of “36%” and “50%.” A corresponding new claim limitation to “at least 35%” did not meet the description requirement because the phrase “at least” had no upper limit and caused the claim to read literally on embodiments outside the “25% to 60%” range, however a limitation to “between 35% and 60%” did meet the description requirement.
Simply stating wherein, the length of the second area is 2 micrometers or more does not give support for everything greater than 2 microns. It would not give applicant support for 1 km widths.
In this case applicant provides no examples or other range discussions thus support for more specific ranges based on the examiner’s rejection is improper.
The argument that 10 to 20 microns and 60 to 100 microns is supported is not found persuasive, the original disclosure stated:
According to one embodiment, as shown in FIG.7 (a), the width of the semiconductor layer may be about 60 micrometers, and the length of the semiconductor layer may be about 20 micrometers.
About 60 is not the same thing as exactly 60, likewise about 20 is not the same thing as exactly 20.
Thus, assuming arguendo that 10 micrometers and 100 micrometers are part of a range applicant would have at best support for 10 micrometers to about 20 micrometers and about 60 micrometers to 100 micrometers.
However, the specification does not support these ranges either. The office feels about 20 already encompassed by 10 micrometers. Likewise, about 60 micrometers already encompass 100 micrometers. Since applicant has provided no bounds for “about” the recitation of 10 to 20 micrometers representing the same scope a about 20 micrometers is not convincing. One reading the claim could reasonably interpret 30 microns to be about 20. And 20 microns to be about 60 microns. Thus, claims fail to have written description support
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, 3-4 and 21-23 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.
With respect to how the device functions specifically:
and wherein the sensitivity of the photodiode decreases in an order of a blue light, a green light, and a red light under a same condition.
wherein a uniform current density is maintained at a voltage of 0 V or less
wherein a current density is higher when a near infrared (NIR) LED is irradiated than when a blue LED is irradiated under same conditions.
Applicant gives no corresponding structure that tells how the device functions in the manner see mpep 2173.05g:
A claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is" (e.g., as evidenced by its specific structure or specific ingredients). In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971). There is nothing inherently wrong with defining some part of an invention in functional terms. Functional language does not, in and of itself, render a claim improper. Id. In fact, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, expressly authorize a form of functional claiming (means- (or step-) plus- function claim limitations discussed in MPEP § 2181 et seq.). Functional language may also be employed to limit the claims without using the means-plus-function format. See, e.g., K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1363, 52 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Unlike means-plus-function claim language that applies only to purely functional limitations, Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1311, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ("Means-plus-function claiming applies only to purely functional limitations that do not provide the structure that performs the recited function."), functional claiming often involves the recitation of some structure followed by its function. For example, in In re Schreiber, the claims were directed to a conical spout (the structure) that "allow[ed] several kernels of popped popcorn to pass through at the same time" (the function). In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As noted by the court in Schreiber, "[a] patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either structurally or functionally." Id.
A functional limitation must be evaluated and considered, just like any other limitation of the claim, for what it fairly conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art in the context in which it is used. A functional limitation is often used in association with an element, ingredient, or step of a process to define a particular capability or purpose that is served by the recited element, ingredient or step. In Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys. Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1117-20, 72 USPQ2d 1001, 1006-08 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court noted that the claim term "operatively connected" is "a general descriptive claim term frequently used in patent drafting to reflect a functional relationship between claimed components," that is, the term "means the claimed components must be connected in a way to perform a designated function." "In the absence of modifiers, general descriptive terms are typically construed as having their full meaning." Id. at 1118, 72 USPQ2d at 1006. In the patent claim at issue, "subject to any clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope, the term ‘operatively connected’ takes the full breath of its ordinary meaning, i.e., ‘said tube [is] operatively connected to said cap’ when the tube and cap are arranged in a manner capable of performing the function of filtering." Id. at 1120, 72 USPQ2d at 1008.
Other examples of permissible function language include the following.
It was held that the limitation used to define a radical on a chemical compound as "incapable of forming a dye with said oxidizing developing agent" although functional, was perfectly acceptable because it set definite boundaries on the patent protection sought. In re Barr, 444 F.2d 588, 170 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1971).
In a claim that was directed to a kit of component parts capable of being assembled, the court held that limitations such as "members adapted to be positioned" and "portions... being resiliently dilatable whereby said housing may be slidably positioned" serve to precisely define present structural attributes of interrelated component parts of the claimed assembly. In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976).
Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty") (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)); see also United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234, 55 USPQ 381 (1942) (holding indefinite claims that recited substantially pure carbon black "in the form of commercially uniform, comparatively small, rounded smooth aggregates having a spongy or porous exterior"). Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). See also Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) where a claim directed to a software based system for creating a customized computer interface screen recited that the screen be "aesthetically pleasing," which is an intended result and does not provide a clear cut indication of scope because it imposed no structural limits on the screen. Unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1340, 94 USPQ2d at 1167. For instance, a single means claim covering every conceivable means for achieving the stated result was held to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph because the court recognized that the specification, which disclosed only those means known to the inventor, was not commensurate in scope with the claim. Hyatt, 708 F.2d at 714-715, 218 USPQ at 197. For more information regarding the written description requirement and enablement requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, see MPEP §§ 2161-2164.08(c). Examiners should keep in mind that whether or not the functional limitation complies with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is a different issue from whether the limitation is properly supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or is distinguished over the prior art.
When a claim limitation employs functional language, the examiner’s determination of whether the limitation is sufficiently definite will be highly dependent on context (e.g., the disclosure in the specification and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art). Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1255, 85 USPQ2d at 1663. For example, a claim that included the term "fragile gel" was found to be indefinite because the definition of the term in the specification was functional, i.e., the fluid is defined by what it does rather than what it is ("ability of the fluid to transition quickly from gel to liquid, and the ability of the fluid to suspend drill cuttings at rest"), and it was ambiguous as to the requisite degree of the fragileness of the gel, the ability of the gel to suspend drill cuttings (i.e., gel strength), and/or some combination of the two. Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1255-56, 85 USPQ2d at 1663. In another example, the claims directed to a tungsten filament for electric incandescent lamps were held invalid for including a limitation that recited "comparatively large grains of such size and contour as to prevent substantial sagging or offsetting during a normal or commercially useful life for such a lamp or other device." General Elec. Co., 304 U.S. at 370-71, 375. The Court observed that the prior art filaments also "consisted of comparatively large crystals" but they were "subject to offsetting" or shifting, and the Court further found that the phrase "of such size and contour as to prevent substantial sagging and offsetting during a normal or commercially useful life for a lamp or other device" did not adequately define the structural characteristics of the grains (e.g., the size and contour) to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Id. at 370. Similarly, a claim was held invalid because it recited "sustantially (sic) pure carbon black in the form of commercially uniform, comparatively small, rounded smooth aggregates having a spongy or porous exterior." United Carbon Co., 317 U.S. at 234. In the latter example, the Court observed various problems with the limitation: "commercially uniform" meant only the degree of uniformity buyers desired; "comparatively small" did not add anything because no standard for comparison was given; and "spongy" and "porous" are synonyms that the Court found unhelpful in distinguishing the claimed invention from the prior art. Id. at 233.
In comparison, a claim limitation reciting "transparent to infrared rays" was held to be definite because the specification showed that a substantial amount of infrared radiation was always transmitted even though the degree of transparency varied depending on certain factors. Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 214, 169 USPQ at 230. Likewise, the claims in another case were held definite because applicant provided "a general guideline and examples sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether a process uses a silicon dioxide source ‘essentially free of alkali metal’ to make a reaction mixture ‘essentially free of alkali metal’ to produce a zeolitic compound ‘essentially free of alkali metal.’" In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 293 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Examiners should consider the following factors when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous: (1) whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim; (2) whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained; and (3) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim. These factors are examples of points to be considered when determining whether language is ambiguous and are not intended to be all inclusive or limiting. Other factors may be more relevant for particular arts. The primary inquiry is whether the language leaves room for ambiguity or whether the boundaries are clear and precise.
During prosecution, applicant may resolve the ambiguities of a functional limitation in a number of ways. For example: (1) "the ambiguity might be resolved by using a quantitative metric (e.g., numeric limitation as to a physical property) rather than a qualitative functional feature" (see Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1255-56, 85 USPQ2d at 1663); (2) applicant could demonstrate that the "specification provide[s] a formula for calculating a property along with examples that meet the claim limitation and examples that do not" (see id. at 1256, 85 USPQ2d at 1663 (citing Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int’l, 316 F.3d 1331, 1341, 65 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003))); (3) applicant could demonstrate that the specification provides a general guideline and examples sufficient to teach a person skilled in the art when the claim limitation was satisfied (see Marosi, 710 F.2d at 803, 218 USPQ at 292); or (4) applicant could amend the claims to recite the particular structure that accomplishes the function.
As a result, it is unclear what structure performs the actions required thus it is unclear the scope of the claim.
Applicant asserts the entire structure would convey the meaning the office disagrees with the claim clearly recites configured to detect and set forth a sensitivity. If the structure as claimed already has the outcomes provided, then the limitations carry no additional weight. Applicant still has not pointed to what additional structure provides for the configured to recitation and allows for the sensitivity.
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)(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 ,3,4, 21, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kang “A Study on Crystallization of Amorphous Silicon with Various Thickness by Blue Laser Annealing and Application” Department of Information Display Graduate School Kyung Hee University Seoul, Korea August, 2020.
Kang teaches A photodiode comprising: a substrate (figure 4-1 items glass); a buffer layer disposed on the substrate and having a thickness from 0.1 micrometers to 10 micrometers (buffer 1 micon thick according to page 42); a semiconductor layer including a first area, a second area, and a third area; a first electrode electrically connected to the first area; and a second electrode electrically connected to the third area, wherein the first area includes a p-type semiconductor area, the third area includes an n-type semiconductor area, and the thickness of the semiconductor layer is 200nanometers to 500 nanometers (figure 4-1 p and n regions at 400 nm thick page 42), wherein the semiconductor layer comprises polysilicon formed by a blue laser annealing of a hydrogenated amorphous silicon layer (page 42), wherein the photodiode is configured to detect at least one of ultraviolet rays, visible rays, and near infrared (NIR) rays, and wherein a sensitivity of the photodiode decreases in an order of a blue light, a green light, and a red light under a same condition (this would be inherent to the structure).
b. As to claim 3, Kang teaches the first area, the second area, and the third area are disposed in a horizontal direction parallel to a main surface of a substrate (figure 4-1).
c. As to claims 4 and 22, Kang teaches wherein the length of the second area is 10 micrometers to 20 micrometers and wherein a width of the semiconductor layer is 60 micrometers to 100 micrometers (figure 4-3a W=60 microns L=20 microns).
d. As to claim 21, Kang structure would inherently have wherein a uniform current density is maintained at a voltage of 0 V or less since the structure is otherwise the same see figure 4-3 as well.
e. As to claim 23, Kang structure would inherently provide wherein a current density is higher when a near infrared (NIR) LED is irradiated than when a blue LED is irradiated under same conditions.
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, 3-4, and 21- 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isobe (20110049588) in view of Jin (Lateral Grain Growth of Amorphous Silicon Films With Wide Thickness Range by Blue Laser Annealing and Application to High Performance Poly-Si TFTs) in further view of Itoh ‘480 previously cited in view of Do 20210272986
As to claims 1 and 2, Isobe teaches A photodiode comprising: a substrate (item 100) a buffer (item 11)2a 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 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 since the thicker layer would allow for a greater chance that light is absorbed in the thickness. However, being too thick makes the device too bulky. Moreover, one would be using conventional thicknesses to obtain expected results of a function a functional photodetector.
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 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.
With respect to the limitation of and wherein a sensitivity of the photodiode decreases in an order of a blue light, a green light, and a red light under the same condition.
It appears that since Isobe is polysilicon the same material as Applicant it must have the same properties. As such the function would be inherent.
Conversely if there is some structural difference the only difference is perhaps the method it is formed. Applicant discuses using Blue Laser Anneal to form the polysilicon. Which assuming arguendo leads to a functional difference, Isobe does not teach.
Jin teaches Introduction:
POLYCRYSTALLINE silicon (poly-Si) thin-film transistors
(TFTs) have been widely used as pixel switching
and driving TFTs for manufacturing display devices [1].
To crystallize amorphous silicon (a-Si) films, various crystallization
methods have been suggested, including solid
phase crystallization (SPC) [2], metal induced crystallization
(MIC) [3], [4], excimer laser annealing (ELA) [5]–[7], and
continuous-wave (CW) laser crystallization [8]–[10]. Among
these technologies, SPC has demerits of high defect density
inside and long process time, and poly-Si films using MIC
suffer from metal contamination. Although the ELA process
can solve some of these issues, it is expensive to establish and
to maintain an ELA system. Furthermore, ELA is limited to a
film thickness around 50 nm, due to its short absorption
depth [11], [12]. Although high power can be used to crystallize thick a-Si films, the high crystallization energy consequently, results in poor electrical properties in thick poly-Si TFTs by ELA [13]. Compared to ELA, CWgreen laser crystallization is able to reduce the production cost and achieve larger polycrystalline grains and higher mobility, but needs
high power and thick a-Si films because of its low optical
absorption coefficient in a-Si. In this work, CW blue laser diode annealing (BLA) is used to achieve high performance and low cost low temperature
polycrystalline silicon (LTPS) TFTs. Previous reports have
shown the possibility of crystal growth in a-Si films by
BLA [14], [15]. Here, high performance P-channel LTPS
TFTs with varying poly-Si film thicknesses and annealed by a
445 nm laser diode are presented. The ability of the CW blue
laser to crystalize a-Si films with thicknesses ranging from
50 to 200 nm is also investigated. Crystallization growth
mechanisms by BLA are analyzed and discussed by means of
high resolution scanning electron microscope (SEM) images
and Raman spectra.
Jin also teaches a SiO2 buffer 1st paragraph of Experiment section
Itoh teaches integrating such detectors with thin film transistor(tft) (abstract figure 2 item 10 tft integrated with 20). Itoh also teach a buffer item 32 between the substrate and the polysilicon area.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time art to form the polysilicon suggested by Isobe paragraph 66 use blue laser anneal to provide for lower cost, high mobility and high performance as suggested by Jin. Further it would have been obvious to use the same crystallization techniques used for tft enabling one process to be used to crystallize the tft and the detectors at a low cost as would be suggested by Itoh and Jin.
Itoh does not explicitly teach a buffer thickness of 0.1 microns to 10 microns.
Contrary to the assertion of applicant there is no evidence of criticality for such buffer thickness there is no data supporting that the range provides some critical benefit. Applicant merely states that:
The buffer layer 120 may prevent the substrate 110 from being damaged by a blue laser irradiated in a crystallization process for a semiconductor layer, which will be described later. The thickness of the buffer layer 120 may be several micrometers, for example, 0.1 micrometers to 10 micrometers. The buffer layer 120 may prevent the substrate 110 from being damaged to by blue laser irradiated in a crystallization process for the semiconductor layer 130 to be described later.
However, the substrate does not affect the device above it and applicant does not show positively that only thickness of 0.1 to 10 microns will prevent damage. In fact, there is no reason not to believe a thicker buffer would be even better for preventing damage.
Do teaches a buffer for blue laser light anneal at .1 to .3 microns.
Paragraph 144:
When the substrate 110 is a glass substrate, the thickness TT1 of the buffer layer 120 may be about 0.1 μm or more, and when the substrate 110 is a plastic substrate such as a polyimide, the thickness TT1 of the buffer layer 120 may be about 0.3 μm or more. The buffer layer 120 serves to planarize the surface while simultaneously preventing the penetration of unnecessary components such as an impurity or moisture. In addition, the buffer layer 120 may be disposed between the semiconductor layer 130 and the substrate 110 to prevent heat generated during the crystallization of the semiconductor from being diffused to the substrate 110. This is described in more detail later.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the SiO2 buffer between the detector and substrate as 0.3 microns to use conventional materials at conventional thicknesses to provide expected outcomes of functional photo detector with low damage substrates (paragraph 168 of Do:
As above-described, according to the thin film transistor and the manufacturing method thereof according to the exemplary embodiment, by forming the thin film transistor having the channel region including the polysilicon layer by crystallizing the amorphous silicon layer by the blue laser annealing, as heat generated during the annealing is diffused in the buffer layer and then does not affect to the flexible substrate, the damage of the substrate may be prevented, and as the grain radius of the polysilicon layer is relatively large, the thickness of the semiconductor layer may be made relatively thick and the protrusions that may occur in the grain boundaries on the surface of the semiconductor layer may be prevented. In addition, even when the substrate includes a plastic, the buffer layer having the thickness of about 0.3 μm or more is formed between the substrate and the amorphous silicon layer, thereby preventing the substrate surface from being damaged by heat generated when the semiconductor layer is subjected to blue laser annealing.)
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 and 22, Isobe teaches the width of region 164 is 3 to 10 microns paragraph 255. Isobe does not teach 10 to 20 microns or 60 to 100 microns.
Applicant has shown no unexpected results for the width compared to 2 microns. Increasing the width merely increases the area light can be detected.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the length of the second area to be 10 to 20 microns or a width of the semiconductor layer is 60 micrometers to 100 micrometers to provide a larger area to enable detecting more light allowing for a large-scale detector.
As to claim 21, recitation of wherein a uniform current density is maintained at a voltage of 0 V or less would be inherent since it is the same material or same material and same process to form the device.
As to claim 23, recitation wherein a current density is higher when a near infrared (NIR) LED is irradiated than when a blue LED is irradiated under same conditions would be inherent since it is the same material or same material and same process to form the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to:
Regarding Claim 4, the range "10 micrometers to 20 micrometers" for the length of the second area and regarding Claim 22, the range "60 micrometers to 100 micrometers" for the width of the semiconductor layer are explicitly supported by the specification as originally filed. Specifically, page 17, lines 5-7 of the original specification states: "According to one embodiment, as shown in FIG.7 (a), the width of the semiconductor layer may be about 60 micrometers, and the length of the semiconductor layer may be about 20 micrometers." Page 18, lines 7-9 of the original specification states: " Next, referring to FIG. 12, the photodiode used in FIG. 12 (a) is similar to the photodiode described in FIG. 7 (a), but there is a difference that the width of the semiconductor layer is 100 micrometers and the length is 10 micrometers."
Because these precise ranges are directly and literally recited in the originally filed specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that the Applicant had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. Accordingly, the rejection under Section 112(a) lacks merit and should be withdrawn.
One would not recognize that applicant has possession of the claimed range. The original disclosure stated:
According to one embodiment, as shown in FIG.7 (a), the width of the semiconductor layer may be about 60 micrometers, and the length of the semiconductor layer may be about 20 micrometers.
Thus, one would assume 10 microns is about 20 and 100 microns is about 60. Which would mean if this was a definition for “about” at best applicant has support for 10 to 30 microns and 20 to 100 microns. However, this is even questionable since it is not clear 10 is a lower limit of about 20 and 100 is an upper limit for about 60. Applicant has support for about 20 and about 60.
As to response to:
The Examiner rejected Claims 1-4 and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite, asserting that the functional expressions in Claims 1, 21, and 23 lack structural support in the specification explaining how the device operates to exhibit these characteristics.
Applicant respectfully disagrees. Under MPEP 2173.05(g), the use of functional language is entirely proper and definite when the specification provides sufficient structural details or when the recited function is the inherent, natural result of the specified structure.
To address the Examiner's concern and clarify the structural basis of these functions, claim 1 has been amended to define the structural and physical parameters more precisely:
1) The photodiode further comprises "a substrate" and "a buffer layer disposed on the substrate and having a thickness from 0.1 micrometers to 10 micrometers."
2) The semiconductor layer "comprises polysilicon formed by a blue laser annealing of a hydrogenated amorphous silicon layer."
3) The thickness of the semiconductor layer is optimized to "200 nanometers to 500 nanometers."
As described in the specification, when a thick (200 nm to 500 nm) hydrogenated amorphous silicon layer (a-Si:H) is deposited on a buffer layer of 0.1 to 10 micrometers and subjected to Blue Laser Annealing (BLA), the resulting polysilicon layer exhibits exceptional crystalline properties, such as significantly enlarged lateral grains, high carrier mobility, and an extremely low defect/trap density. This specific physical and structural configuration inherently yields the following distinct characteristics:
- Sensitivity Order (Claim 1): Due to the optimized thickness (200-500 nm) of the highly crystalline BLA polysilicon layer, the optical absorption depth is finely tuned. This specific physical structure naturally produces an optical absorption profile where the photodiode's sensitivity decreases in the order of blue, green, and red light under the same condition.
- Uniform Current Density at 0 V or less (Claim 21): Because BLA provides a highly uniform polysilicon film with a dramatically reduced density of defect states, charge carriers do not easily recombine or get trapped at grain boundaries. This structural integrity prevents dark current fluctuations under reverse bias (0 V or less), naturally maintaining a stable and uniform current density.
- Higher Current Density under NIR than Blue (Claim 23): Typical thin-film silicon sensors (e.g., ~50 nm thick) cannot absorb near-infrared (NIR) light because silicon has a low absorption coefficient in the infrared range. However, by optimizing the semiconductor layer's thickness to 200 to 500 nanometers and forming it using BLA, the optical path length is significantly extended, enabling highly efficient NIR absorption. This unique structural dimension leads to the physical phenomenon where the current density is higher under NIR LED than under blue LED irradiation under the same conditions.
Therefore, the functional limitations in Claims 1, 21, and 23 are not indefinite; rather, they are the clear, reproducible, and inherent physical consequences of the structural parameters recited in Claim 1. Consequently, the rejection under Section 112(b) should be withdrawn.
These are merely assertions, and applicant is pointing to vague process affects to assert the outcomes. The issue is there is nothing in the disclosure that point what necessarily must be formed different to obtain the recited outcomes. The assertions of:
- Sensitivity Order (Claim 1): Due to the optimized thickness (200-500 nm) of the highly crystalline BLA polysilicon layer, the optical absorption depth is finely tuned. This specific physical structure naturally produces an optical absorption profile where the photodiode's sensitivity decreases in the order of blue, green, and red light under the same condition.
- Uniform Current Density at 0 V or less (Claim 21): Because BLA provides a highly uniform polysilicon film with a dramatically reduced density of defect states, charge carriers do not easily recombine or get trapped at grain boundaries. This structural integrity prevents dark current fluctuations under reverse bias (0 V or less), naturally maintaining a stable and uniform current density.
- Higher Current Density under NIR than Blue (Claim 23): Typical thin-film silicon sensors (e.g., ~50 nm thick) cannot absorb near-infrared (NIR) light because silicon has a low absorption coefficient in the infrared range. However, by optimizing the semiconductor layer's thickness to 200 to 500 nanometers and forming it using BLA, the optical path length is significantly extended, enabling highly efficient NIR absorption. This unique structural dimension leads to the physical phenomenon where the current density is higher under NIR LED than under blue LED irradiation under the same conditions.
Are merely assertions that the outcomes are linked to those structural details. Applicant appears to be trying to backdoor process limitations however there is no evidence that the BLA provides any benefit there is absolutely no comparison of BLA vs any other method. Thus, the assertion that BLA and the thickness provide outcome claims is purely speculative and one would not clearly know what structure performs the outcome, and which ones do not. As such the rejection is maintained.
With respect to:
Isobe's primary teaching focuses on using single-crystal silicon layers (such as SOI structures) for photodiodes to overcome the severe limitations of polycrystalline silicon. Isobe states that polycrystalline silicon contains numerous grain boundaries and defects, which cause high dark currents, trap carriers, and drastically reduce the sensitivity of the photoelectric conversion element. While Isobe briefly mentions in paragraph [0066] that a polycrystalline substrate could be used, it strongly cautions against it due to these disadvantages. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Isobe would be deterred from using polysilicon for the photo-sensing layer.
As discussed, multiple times before Isobe does not teach away from polysilicon. Isobe teaches the use of polysilicon paragraph 66 as applicant points out. Merely describing as inferior to other material is not a teaching away.
With respect to:
Jin is a scientific publication solely concerned with fabricating high-performance thin-film transistors (TFTs) for display pixel switching. Jin does not disclose, teach, or suggest a photodiode, let alone a lateral PIN photodiode. TFTs and photodiodes operate on fundamentally different physics and have entirely different design parameters. A skilled artisan seeking to design a high-sensitivity lateral photodiode would have no motivation to consult a TFT fabrication paper to modify Isobe's single-crystal photodiode structure.
This is not found convincing since while different somewhat different both tft and PIN diode are built on diode structure, and the physical properties of cited material do affect PIN photodiodes. Thus, any improvement of semiconductor material would be relevant to one skilled in the art.
With respect to:
Itoh merely teaches integrating a TFT and a detector in a single process.
Itoh does motivate why one would look to Jin as well. Itoh describes forming photodiodes and TFT on the same substrate. Looking at Itoh one would understand that methods used for TFT (BLA) could also be used in the fabrication of the photodiode to simplify production of both system. Since using BLA in both the TFT and the photodetector would provide the benefits in the TFT using BLA in the photodiode would use systems already provided for in fabricating the TFT for the photodiode. Allowing simplified processing. Based on the improved result of the photodiode one would realize any benefit naturally flowing from the simplification of the process steps.
With respect to:
In the claimed invention, the buffer layer having a thickness of 0.1 micrometers to 10 micrometers is critical. During the BLA process, high-intensity laser energy is applied to melt and crystallize a relatively thick (200 to 500 nm) amorphous silicon layer. Without a buffer layer within the claimed thickness range of 0.1 to 10 micrometers, the extreme thermal energy and shock from BLA would penetrate and damage the underlying substrate. This thermal damage induces severe structural and electrical defects, such as heavy leakage currents, which would ruin the performance of the photodiode. The buffer layer of 0.1 to 10 micrometers acts as an essential thermal and structural barrier during BLA, allowing the thick silicon film to crystallize into high-quality polysilicon without harming the substrate.
None of the cited references teach, suggest, or recognize the necessity or the specific thickness of such a buffer layer in the context of performing BLA for lateral PIN photodiodes.
Furthermore, the combination of the 200-500 nm thick polysilicon semiconductor layer crystallized by BLA on a 0.1-10 micrometer buffer layer yields highly unexpected, synergistic results. Specifically, as defined in Claims 21 and 23, the photodiode maintains a highly stable and uniform current density under reverse bias and exhibits a higher current density under near-infrared (NIR) LED irradiation than under blue LED irradiation under same conditions. Achieving such superior NIR response in a lateral silicon PIN photodiode is highly unusual and represents a "difference in kind rather than degree" (MPEP 2144.05 III).
Applicant gives nothing to compare it to while applicant shows data for their device they show no improvement.
As set forth in MPEP 716.02a:
"A greater than expected result is an evidentiary factor pertinent to the legal conclusion of obviousness... of the claims at issue." In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In Corkhill, the claimed combination showed an additive result when a diminished result would have been expected. This result was persuasive of nonobviousness even though the result was equal to that of one component alone. Evidence of a greater than expected result may also be shown by demonstrating an effect which is greater than the sum of each of the effects taken separately (i.e., demonstrating "synergism"). Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). However, a greater than additive effect is not necessarily sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness because such an effect can either be expected or unexpected. Applicants must further show that the results were greater than those which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage. Ex parte The NutraSweet Co., 19 USPQ2d 1586 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991) (Evidence showing greater than additive sweetness resulting from the claimed mixture of saccharin and L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine was not sufficient to outweigh the evidence of obviousness because the teachings of the prior art lead to a general expectation of greater than additive sweetening effects when using mixtures of synthetic sweeteners.).
Further MPEP 2144.05 III
Showing That the Range Is Critical
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 271 (1916) (a patent based on a change in the proportions of a prior product or process (changing from 4-10% oil to 1% oil) must be confined to the proportions that were shown to be critical (1%)); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946) (“Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies.”); In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937) (“Where the component elements of alloys are the same, and where they approach so closely the same range of quantities as is here the case, it seems that there ought to be some noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys.”); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924 (CCPA 1933) (“It is well established that, while a change in the proportions of a combination shown to be old, such as is here involved, may be inventive, such changes must be critical as compared with the proportions used in the prior processes, producing a difference in kind rather than degree.”); In re Wells, 56 F.2d 674, 675, 12 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1932) (“Changes in proportions of agents used in combinations . . . in order to be patentable, must be critical as compared with the proportions of the prior processes.”); E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1006, 128 USPQ2d 1193, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2018.)(“[A] modification of a process parameter may be patentable if it ‘produce[s] a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art.” (citing Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs, UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 693, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“A difference of degree is not as persuasive as a difference in kind – i.e., if the range produces ‘a new property dissimilar to the known property,’ rather than producing a predictable result but to an unexpected extent.”).
See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g) for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.
Applicant is only asserting benefits. applicant have not shown that there is any improvement or in fact the improvement is unexpected.
Further the damage to the substrate creating leakage currents is not found convincing on its face. If one is using an insulating plastic or glass substrate there can be no leakage currents since it is insulative. Maybe it would show improved results for doped semiconductor substrate, however this is purely speculative none of the assertions that:
In the claimed invention, the buffer layer having a thickness of 0.1 micrometers to 10 micrometers is critical. During the BLA process, high-intensity laser energy is applied to melt and crystallize a relatively thick (200 to 500 nm) amorphous silicon layer. Without a buffer layer within the claimed thickness range of 0.1 to 10 micrometers, the extreme thermal energy and shock from BLA would penetrate and damage the underlying substrate. This thermal damage induces severe structural and electrical defects, such as heavy leakage currents, which would ruin the performance of the photodiode. The buffer layer of 0.1 to 10 micrometers acts as an essential thermal and structural barrier during BLA, allowing the thick silicon film to crystallize into high-quality polysilicon without harming the substrate.
Furthermore, the combination of the 200-500 nm thick polysilicon semiconductor layer crystallized by BLA on a 0.1-10 micrometer buffer layer yields highly unexpected, synergistic results. Specifically, as defined in Claims 21 and 23, the photodiode maintains a highly stable and uniform current density under reverse bias and exhibits a higher current density under near-infrared (NIR) LED irradiation than under blue LED irradiation under same conditions.
Are supported by evidence or even by the disclosure as a whole figure 7-13 provide data for applicant’s “claimed” device but there is no comparison of the closest prior art.
Thus, the rejections are deemed proper and maintained.
Applicant is reminded of the Applicant duty to disclose under 37 CFR 1.56.
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 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
Prosecution Insights