Attorney’s Docket Number: 0118/0658PUS1
Filing Date: 02/08/2023
Claimed Priority Date: 12/17/2020(FR2013324)
12/15/2021(PCT/FR2021/052347)
Applicant: Badano
Examiner: Aneesa Baig
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 . The application serial no. 18258164 filed on 06/16/2023 has been entered. Pending in this Office Action are claims 1-14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 6,7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 6 and 7 recite “the filtering area matrix”, while in claim 1, there is a limitation of “a matrix of filtering areas”. It is unclear if both recitations of this limitation are directed to a same or different features, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the claims 6 and 7 will be construed as reciting -- matrix of filtering areas--, as best understood by the examiner in view of the original disclosure, until further clarifications are provided by the applicant.
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, 10,11,12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sik et al(US 20170125614 A1, Hereinafter Sik) in view of Lee et al (US 20210250480 A1, Hereinafter Lee) further in view of Vaillant et. al(US 20190191067 A1, Hereinafter Vaillant).
Regarding claim 1, Sik (e.g., Figures 1, 2ter, 4, 5, 12-15 [0020]-[0090]) discloses most aspects of the instant invention, including, a manufacturing method for a device (e.g., bispectral array detector 1) for multi- spectral photo-detection in the infrared, comprising:
a photo-detection stage (e.g., monotype array detector 2, sensitive surface composed of an alignment of photosites 31a and 31b) and a filtering stage (e.g., dual-band filter 5, and 4a, 4b, corresponding to photodetection sites 31a,31b respectively), superimposed on top of one another along an optical axis (Fig 1) , wherein:
the photo-detection stage includes a read circuit, an active layer made of a semiconductor material (e.g., Fig 13 and [0068]) and incorporating a matrix of photodiodes ([0068]), and a support substrate, superimposed in that order along the optical axis, the read circuit being electrically connected to the photodiodes of the photodiode matrix;
the filtering stage comprises a matrix of filtering areas which consists of filtering areas of at least two types (4a, 4b, corresponding to photodetection sites 31a,31b), including a first type; each formed of an interference filter and each configured to transmit wavelengths of a first spectral band and to block wavelengths of a second spectral band, and a second type, each configured to transmit at least part of the wavelengths of the second spectral band (e.g., 4a is low-pass, while 4b is high pass, Fig 2ter shows this and [0071]-[0084]);
While Sik shows a hybrid dual band photo sending device stacked vertically, it is silent about the use of the following:
an anti-reflective coating, and which is configured to reduce inner reflections in the infrared.
Lee (e.g., Fig 4, [0051]-[0056]), on the other hand and in a related field of image sensors teaches an anti-reflective coating configured for use with infrared light applications, made of silicon oxide or multilayers including silicon oxide whose refractive index can be adjusted. Lee also teaches includes the plurality of layers whose refractive indexes gradually decrease downward, a difference in refractive index at each interlayer boundary may be minimized to prevent reflection of infrared light. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have an anti-reflective coating in between a substrate and upper light filtering layer in the structure of Sik, as taught by Lee to direct infrared light and prevent reflection.
While Lee is silent about the use of an adhesive layer in between the filtering layers and photo sensing stage, Vaillant (e.g., Fig 1 and [0048]), on the other hand and in a related field of infrared hybrid image sensors, teaches the use of silicon oxide layers as being capable of bonding two layers, specifically the passivation layer is between a filtering stage and a substrate, while the substrate including photo diodes are located under the adhesive layer.
Furthermore, MPEP § 2141 provides that an invention may render a claimed limitation obvious when it would be “obvious to try” to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, In such an instance it would be obvious to use an adhesive layer in the structure of Sik in view of Lee, as taught by Vaillant to join a filtering stage and a photodetection stage.
Regarding Claim 10, Sik (Fig 2ter [0080]-[0083])shows the layers of the first type filtering area are made of dielectric layers (e.g., alternating superimposition of layers of ZnS, SiO.sub.2 and Ge.)
Regarding Claim 11, Sik (Fig 2ter [0080]-[0083]) shows the filtering area of the second type is made of a dielectric filler material.
Regarding Claim 12, Sik (Fig 2ter [0075][0080]-[0083]) shows the filtering area of the second type, including an interference filter and of the two types of filtering zones, among which filtering zones of a first type, each formed of an interference filter and each capable of transmitting the wavelengths of a first spectral band and blocking the wavelengths of a second spectral band, and filtering zones of a second type, each capable of transmitting a portion of the wavelengths of the second spectral band.
Regarding Claim 13, Hotchkiss shows the active layer is made of mercury-cadmium-tellurium—HgCdTe (e.g., [0068]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sik in view of Lee in view of Valliant further in view of Chou (US 20160276394 A1, Hereinafter Chou).
Regarding Claim 5, while Sik/Lee/Vaillant show hybrid sensor in the infrared range, but are silent about a use of metal sidewalls in pixel grids in the filtering stage.
Chou (e.g., Fig 1A, [0026]), on the other hand and in a related field of image sensors, teaches using metal sidewalls (e.g., metal grid 124) extending into the filtering stage (e.g., composite grid 120 around the unique color filters 110,112,114) to block light from passing between neighboring pixel sensors 102 to help reduce cross talk.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a metal grid around the pixels of Sik/Lee/Vaillant as taught by Chou, to reduce noise and crosstalk between photosensors.
Regarding Claim 6 and 7, refer to comments in paragraph 14-16 relating to Claim 5, as they would be considered repeated here.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4,8,9,14 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
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure relating to infrared hybrid image sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEESA RIAZ BAIG whose telephone number is (571)272-0249. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm 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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 571-272-1705. 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.
/ANEESA RIAZ BAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 2814 /WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814