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 .
Response to Remarks
The amendment dated February 9, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application; claims 9-12 are withdrawn from consideration.
Examiner acknowledges receipt of the certified copies of priority documents.
The amendment to the Specification overcomes the objection set forth in the previous Office Action. However, the amendments have mandated new objections to Claim 8, as detailed below.
Examiner agrees that the amendments changing “photoelectric element” and “sensing element” to “photoelectric circuit” and “sensing circuit” remove the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), thus overcoming the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. However, Examiner again rejects Claim 1 under 112(a) and 112(b) due to the amendment, as detailed below.
Examiner notes that in the previous Office Action, no claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 due to the final limitation of the independent claim. A thorough prior art search did not reveal a device for analyzing a target based on the magnitudes of current peaks induced in a photodiode from the leading/trailing edges of pulsed light. Despite this, the claims were not indicated as allowable subject matter because the “sensing element” device was defined in terms of its function without support from the specification. It was therefore unclear precisely what apparatus was claimed.
Applicant remarks that “A sensing circuit for measuring photoelectric current is a well-known and conventional structure to one of ordinary skill in the art, and would reasonably include current sensing circuitry, peak detection circuitry, and signal processing circuitry configured to process transient photocurrent signals generated by a PN junction.” In light of this admission, claims 1-8 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as detailed below. All components necessary for creating an apparatus capable of performing the claimed function (Claim 1: “measure a magnitude of either a first peak current of the photocurrent corresponding to a leading edge of the infrared pulsed light or a second peak current of the photocurrent corresponding to a trailing edge of the infrared pulsed light, and to analyze the target based on the measured magnitude”) are taught in the cited prior-art, even if the claimed function itself is not.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 2-3: “wherein further comprising” should read “further comprising”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim of a “sensing circuit” capable of measuring a magnitude of a first or second peak current and analyzing the target based on the measured magnitude is not commensurate with the disclosure. The specification continually defines the “sensing element” (hereinafter presumed to be the “sensing circuit”) only in terms of its function and position relative to the photoelectric circuit, and Figure 2 only displays the “sensing element” 300 to be a generic ammeter. Such a device is only capable of measuring current rather than both measuring and analyzing the magnitude of a peak current. If the sensing circuit is merely an ammeter, then the disclosure fails to support the structure configured for analyzing the target based on the measured magnitude.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Regarding claim 1, the “sensing circuit” appears from the disclosure to be a conventional ammeter capable of measuring current magnitudes, but the claim includes additional functional limitations. The applicant’s response further clarifies the “well-known” components capable of performing the function of analyzing the target based on the measured magnitude, yet the claim fails to include these components. It is therefore unclear what means are included in the “sensing circuit” that allow it to both measure a peak current and analyze the target based on the measured magnitude. Moreover, the function “analyze the target based on the measured magnitude” is itself vague. From the claim and specification, it difficult to precisely determine what type of device performs the analyzing function, or if the operator simply examines the result and analyzes it.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonehara et al. (JP 2016214512 A).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Yonehara teaches a bio-sensing device (under “Background-art”: “The sensor is used for detecting a biological signal”) with a photoelectric circuit (Fig. 1: photoelectric conversion layers 231, 232) the device comprising:
an infrared (Paragraph beginning with “The light emitted from the first…” in machine translation: “The light emitted from the light emitting layer 121 may be… infrared light”) pulse generator (Fig. 3: light emitting unit can receive pulse signal from pulse generator 901a) configured to irradiate infrared pulsed light (Fig. 1: 121a, 121b) to a target (Fig. 1: measurement object 60);
the photoelectric circuit configured to receive the infrared pulsed light which has transmitted through the target (Fig. 1: light 121a,b transmits through target to photoelectric conversion layers), and to generate photocurrent based on the received light (Paragraph beginning with “The light 121 a and the light 121 b pass…” in machine translation: “a current corresponding to the amount of carriers generated in the first photoelectric conversion layer 231 flows…”)
Yonehara does not teach a sensing circuit configured to measure a magnitude of either a first peak current of the photocurrent corresponding to a leading edge of the infrared pulsed light or a second peak current of the photocurrent corresponding to a trailing edge of the infrared pulsed light, and to analyze the target based on the measured magnitude.
Per applicant’s remarks, sensing circuits for measuring photoelectric current, detecting peaks, and processing transient photocurrent signals generated by a PN junction are well-known and conventional structures to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, a sensing circuit configured to measure a magnitude of either a first peak current of the photocurrent corresponding to a leading edge of the infrared pulsed light or a second peak current of the photocurrent corresponding to a trailing edge of the infrared pulsed light, and to analyze the target based on the measured magnitude is a simple combination of well-known and conventional elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique (circuitry capable of measuring a peak current magnitude analyzing the magnitude to obtain information) to a known device ready for improvement (the bio-sensing device of Yonehara) to yield predictable results (a bio-sensor that irradiates pulsed infrared light through a target onto a photoelectric device, generating a photocurrent with peaks corresponding to the leading and trailing edges of the pulsed light, with the magnitudes of the peaks measured and analyzed by a sensing circuit). See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Yonehara teaches a pulse period of the infrared pulsed light being in a range of 1 ms to .1 s (Paragraph beginning with “When the frequency…” in machine translation: “frequency of the pulse voltage [powering the light emitters] can be, for example, 100 Hz to 100 KHz [.01 ms to 10 ms]”).
Yonehara does not teach a ratio of a pulse width to the pulse period of the infrared pulsed light being in a range of 1% to 10%.
However, Yonehara explains that using a pulsed voltage to power the light emitter causes it to emit light for a shorter duration than with a constant voltage; therefore, power consumption is reduced and deterioration of the light emitter is slowed (Paragraph beginning with “According to this embodiment, the sensor…” in machine translation). It logically follows that further reducing the duty cycle of the pulse generator (and thus the ratio of the pulse width to the pulse period of the light) will further reduce power consumption and slow the deterioration of the light source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce the duty cycle of the pulsed light to a value in a range of 1% to 10% as a result of routine optimization of the device of Yonehara. This obtains a pulse duration that minimizes the emission time of the light while still being long enough to induce and detect transient photocurrents.
Claims 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonehara in view of Fukuda (JP 6554300 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Yonehara does not teach the photoelectric circuit comprising:
a p-type semiconductor layer;
an n-type semiconductor layer formed on the p-type semiconductor layer such that a PN junction is formed between the p-type semiconductor layer and the n-type semiconductor layer, wherein the infrared pulsed light is incident on the n-type semiconductor layer; and
a transparent current collector formed on a surface of the n-type semiconductor layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Fukuda teaches the photoelectric circuit (under “Technical-Field”: photoelectric conversion device) comprising:
a p-type semiconductor layer (Fig. 1: p-type semiconductor layer 7);
an n-type semiconductor layer (Fig. 1: n-type semiconductor layer 5), wherein the light is incident on the n-type semiconductor layer (Fig. 1; Note the intervening translucent substrate 2 does not prevent the light from being incident on the n-type semiconductor 5);
a transparent current collector formed on a surface of the n-type semiconductor layer (Fig. 1: transparent conductive layer 3).
Neither Yonehara nor Fukuda directly teach the n-type semiconductor layer being formed on
the p-type semiconductor layer such that a PN junction is formed between the p-type semiconductor layer and the n-type semiconductor layer. Rather, Fukuda teaches an intervening i-type semiconductor layer, forming a PIN diode. However, PN junctions formed between p- and n-type semiconductor layers are well-known in the art, and the insertion of an i-type layer is a well-known modification to this junction that simply widens the depletion region while maintaining a similar function. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the PIN junction of Fukuda with a simpler PN junction, obtaining predictable results (a photoelectric circuit with a PN junction between the p- and n-type layers, with the benefit of a simpler design and manufacturing process). See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
In light of the teachings of Fukuda, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yonehara such that the photoelectric circuit involves a PN junction formed between p- and n-type semiconductor layers, with the infrared pulsed light being incident on the n-type layer, and a transparent current collector is formed on a surface of the n-type semiconductor layer. This is an altogether simple, functional, and easily manufacturable structure for the photoelectric circuit.
Regarding claim 4, Yonehara does not teach the photoelectric circuit generating the photocurrent using a self-bias generated by the PN junction.
In the same field of endeavor, Fukuda teaches the photoelectric circuit generating the photocurrent using a self-bias generated by the PIN diode (Paragraph beginning with “Here, prior to the description of each component…” in machine translation describes light being absorbed by the i-type layer, causing charge separation inside the i-type layer, forming electrons and holes. Electrons and holes are collected in n-type layer and p-type layer respectively, then collected in the transparent conductive layer and back electrode layer respectively). This is largely identical to the process by which a PN diode photoelectric circuit generates photocurrent using a self-bias, except that the i-type layer simply widens the depletion region of the PN junction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the PIN junction of Fukuda with a simpler PN junction, obtaining predictable results (a photoelectric circuit wherein the photocurrent is generated using a self-bias generated by a PN junction). See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
In light of the teachings of Fukuda, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yonehara such that the photoelectric circuit involves a PN junction formed between p- and n-type semiconductor layers, with the photocurrent being generated using a self-bias from the PN junction. This is an altogether simple, functional, and easily manufacturable structure for the photoelectric circuit that does not require an external power supply to generate the current (and, in fact, generating the current using an external supply rather than a self-bias would simply be counterintuitive to the goal of photocurrent-based imaging).
Regarding claim 6, Fukuda teaches the transparent current collector comprising at least one selected from silver nanowire, IGZO (Indium Gallium Zinc Oxide), IZO (Indium Zinc Oxide), SIZO (Silicon Indium Zinc Oxide), HIZO (Hafnium Indium Zinc Oxide), ZTO (Zinc Tin Oxide), ZnO (Paragraph beginning with “the transparent conductive layer 3 is not…” in machine translation: zinc oxide listed), Ga2O3, In2O3, and SnO2. This is a list of materials well-known to be transparent and conductive and therefore used in transparent conductive collectors. Zinc oxide in particular is highly transparent, minimizing parasitic light absorption while providing good conductivity of the photocurrent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a transparent current collector comprising zinc oxide in the photoelectric device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonehara in view of Fukuda and further in view of Song et al. (KR 20180013787 A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yonehara and Fukuda does not teach the p-type semiconductor layer comprising p-type silicon (p-Si), and
the n-type semiconductor layer comprising titanium dioxide (TiO2).
In the same field of endeavor, Song teaches a p-type semiconductor layer comprising p-type silicon (p-Si) (Fig. 3: p+-BSF channel formed in silicon substrate 100), and
the n-type semiconductor layer comprising titanium dioxide (Fig. 3 and paragraph beginning with “Referring to FIG. 3” in machine translation: metal oxide layer 130 may be a titanium [di]oxide film)
In light of the teachings of Song, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yonehara and Fukuda such that the p-type layer comprises silicon and the n-type layer comprises titanium dioxide. Using these materials in combination enhances carrier separation and reduces combination, as is well-known in the art.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonehara in view of Fukuda and further in view of Oh et al. (US 20190067507 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yonehara and Fukuda does not teach the sensing circuit being electrically connected to and disposed between the p-type semiconductor layer and the n-type semiconductor layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Oh teaches the sensing circuit being electrically connected to and disposed between the p-type semiconductor layer and the n-type semiconductor layer (Paragraph [0134]: “a negative terminal and a positive terminal of an ammeter (not shown) are respectively connected to the n-type electrode 360 and the p-type electrode 370 to measure current generated in the light receiving device”. See Fig. 8).
In light of the teachings of Oh, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yonehara and Fukuda such that an ammeter is connected to measure the current between the p-type and n-type semiconductor layers. This provides a simple and immediate structure to measure the induced photocurrents and peaks directly, rather than reading out a voltage as in Yonehara.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonehara in view of Beyrard (JP 2009500136 A).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Yonehara does not teach an image generator configured to generate a mapping image of the target based on a change in the magnitude of the peak current measured by the sensing circuit.
In the same field of endeavor, Beyrard teaches an image generator configured to generate a mapping image of the target (Abstract and Fig. 26: detectors 13a and 13b detect light intensity after attenuation through target; converter 15 turns light intensity into data, which is used to generate an image by computer 27).
The image generator of Beyrard uses light intensity data to generate the mapping rather than the magnitudes of peak currents induced in a photoelectric circuit, measured by the sensing circuit. However, the necessary components of the sensing circuit are well-known in the art, per applicant’s remarks. In light of the teachings of Beyrard, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Yonehara (already modified with the well-known peak detection circuitry, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1) to include circuitry that converts the peak current magnitudes measured at various points on the target to data, which is then processed into an image by a computer. Image generation based on the data provides the benefit of allowing the operator to view and analyze all the peak currents at once in order to determine the condition of the target.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action. Accordingly, 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 WILLIAM L TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-8389. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-4pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
/WILLIAM LAURENCE TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884