DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
Claim 8 recites in part “a photodiode over contours of the array of metal pillar structures and comprising: a layer of a first conductive material that conforms to the contours of the array of metal pillar structures; a layer of a quantum dot material on the layer of the first conductive material”.
To elaborate briefly on the above, the claim recites that it is a (1) photodiode and it is located over (2) contours of the array of metal pillars, with (3) a first conductive material that conforms to contours and with (4) a layer of quantum dot material. The above limitations recite shape of photodiode, shape of objects support it and specify that it is specifically a quantum dot type of photodiode. The above combination of 4 factors was not found in prior art.
The closest references that were found were: US-20220262968 and US-20250113627. However, they are not sufficient to be a primary reference of a good obviousness rejection. Hence, claims are indicated as allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Claim 22 (in combination with claim 21) recites limitations similar in scope to those of claim 8, and therefore is indicated as allowable subject matter for similar reasons.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 21 & 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US-2018/0315788) by Kuo et al (“Kuo”).
Regarding claim 1, Kuo discloses in FIGs. 7-8 and related text, e.g., a device, comprising:
a first photodiode (106-2) comprising:
a layer of a semiconductor material (120); and
a p-type dopant or an n-type dopant within the layer of the semiconductor material (par. 56); and
a second photodiode (106-1) comprising:
a layer of a quantum dot material (112; par. 41, 45);
a layer of a first conductive material (114) above the layer of the quantum dot material and in contact with the layer of the quantum dot material (see FIG. 7); and
a layer of a second conductive material (110) below the layer of the quantum dot material and in contact with the layer of the quantum dot material.
Regarding claim 2, Kuo discloses in FIGs. 7-8 and related text, e.g., wherein the second photodiode is below the layer of the semiconductor material (please note that Kuo’s device is not tied to a particular orientation (par. 29); hence, for purposes of addressing the claim limitations, turn the drawing upside-down; in such orientation, the limitations are met).
Regarding claim 3, Kuo discloses in FIGs. 7-8 and related text, e.g., wherein the layer of the first conductive material comprises:
a conductive material that is transmissive to near infrared light waves (by definition; 112 detects IR light; hence, material of “first conductive material”, 114, has to be transmissive to near infrared light waves; as far as “near infrared”, this is defined to have wavelength between 700-2500, per Webster dictionary; this particular case, see FIG. 8; it shows peak of light at 800+; thus meeting limitations).
Regarding claim 4, Kuo discloses in FIGs. 7-8 and related text, e.g., wherein the layer of the first conductive material comprises: a conductive material that is transmissive to short-wave infrared light waves (short-wave infrared is defined as infrared starting with wavelength of 900; first of all, see FIG. 8; Kuo’s photodetector is capable of detecting light at 900, however poorly; second of all, see par. 120; Kuo explicitly teaches that wavelength to be detected can be fine0-tuned by adjusting thickness; hence, the cited limitations are at the very least obvious, in light of Kuo’s explicit teachings, in order to find the desired wavelength of light).
Regarding claim 6, Kuo discloses in FIGs. 7-8 and related text, e.g., wherein a thickness of the layer of the quantum dot material is included in a range of approximately 180 nanometers to approximately 220 nanometers (par. 53, thickness of 120; limitations are met by overlapping range).
Regarding claim 21, Kuo discloses in FIGs. 7-8 and related text, e.g., device, comprising:
a first conductive material layer (110) on a surface;
a quantum dot material layer (112) on the first conductive material layer; and
a second conductive material layer (114) on the quantum dot material layer,
wherein the second conductive material layer is transmissive to near infrared light or to short-wave infrared light (see claims 3-4).
Regarding claim 25, Kuo discloses in FIGs. 7-8 and related text, e.g., wherein the surface comprises a top surface of an application specific integrated circuit device (such as image sensor, in the instant case; see pars. 2-5).
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 of this title, 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 7, 23-24 & 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-2018/0315788) by Kuo et al (“Kuo”).
Regarding claim 7, Kuo discloses in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entire claim structure, as recited in above claims, except “wherein the first photodiode is included as part of a system-on-chip integrated circuit device, and wherein the second photodiode is included as part of an interface structure between the system-on-chip integrated circuit device an application specific integrated circuit device“.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Kuo with “wherein the first photodiode is included as part of a system-on-chip integrated circuit device, and wherein the second photodiode is included as part of an interface structure between the system-on-chip integrated circuit device an application specific integrated circuit device“, in order to use the photodiode devices in a well-integrated mobile device (if one looks at something like an iPhone, the device will contain photodiodes (a camera), which will be integrated with multiple chips, such as system-on-chip (an integrated circuit that integrates multiple functions in a single chip that all talk to each other) and application specific integrated circuit (an integrated circuit that performs a specific function); presence of both such devices is notoriously well-known in mobile devices; presence of camera is also notoriously well-known in mobile devices; hence, having a photodiode that forms a single electric circuit with “system on the chip” and “application specific integrated circuit” is at the very least obvious to POSITA).
Regarding claim 23, Kuo discloses in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the quantum dot material layer comprises: a plurality of first portions comprising a first quantum dot material (such as 112, in FIG. 7; material being one of the ones listed in par. 45), wherein the plurality of first portions are on first parts of the first conductive material layer (the one that is shown in FIG. 7); and
a plurality of second portions comprising a second quantum dot material (such as 112, in FIG. 7; material being another one of the ones listed in par. 45, since Kuo explicitly teaches that “combinations” are possible, not just use of single material), wherein the plurality of second portions are on second parts of the first conductive material layer (the one that is shown in FIG. 6; such combination is at the very least obvious to a POSITA in light of explicit teachings of Kuo (in par. 45); hence, why this claim is put in under 103, instead of 102 [Wingdings font/0xE0] such an embodiment is not shown, but Kuo explicitly states that combinations are allowed).
Regarding claim 24, Kuo discloses in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entire claim structure, as recited in above claims, except “wherein the plurality of first portions alternate with the plurality of second portions”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Kuo with “wherein the plurality of first portions alternate with the plurality of second portions”, since Kuo generally teaches alternating different pixels in some pattern (see FIG. 11 A for example; it teaches alternating pixel arrangement; hence, making alternating pixel arrangements out of various IR pixels would be in line with explicit examples of Kuo’s teachings).
Regarding claim 26, Kuo discloses in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entire claim structure, as recited in above claims, except “wherein the quantum dot material layer comprises quantum dots including a lead sulfide core”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Kuo with “wherein the quantum dot material layer comprises quantum dots including a lead sulfide core”, since Kuo explicitly states that any suitable quantum dot material can be used in his invention (par. 45).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-2018/0315788) by Kuo et al (“Kuo”) in view of (US-2023/0053000) by Murata et al (“Murata”).
Regarding claim 5, Kuo discloses in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entire claim structure, as recited in above claims, except “wherein the layer of the first conductive material comprises: a tin oxide material including an indium dopant, a tin oxide material including an antimony dopant, or a tin oxide material including a fluorine dopant”.
Murata discloses in FIGs. 2-3 and related text, e.g., “wherein the layer of the first conductive material (502/602/508A/608/etc.; see par. 184) comprises: a tin oxide material including an indium dopant, a tin oxide material including an antimony dopant, or a tin oxide material including a fluorine dopant (par. 184)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Kuo with “wherein the layer of the first conductive material comprises: a tin oxide material including an indium dopant, a tin oxide material including an antimony dopant, or a tin oxide material including a fluorine dopant” as taught by Murata, in order to simplify the processing steps of making of the device, by using a notoriously well-known material (tin oxide), in its notoriously well-known application (as an electrode that is transparent to light).
Conclusion
Additional references (if any) are cited on the PTO-892 as disclosing similar features to those of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Belousov whose telephone number is (571)-272-3167. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 am-4 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeff Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Alexander Belousov/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2894
06/21/26
/Mounir S Amer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights