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 .
Response to Amendment
The current Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on October 29, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 8, filed October 29, 2025, with respect to Claims 1-9, and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. Applicant argues that the current application is improper due to the reference application having a later filing date.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 6, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shabbir ("Plasmonically enhanced spectrally selective narrowband MWIR and LWIR light detection based on hybrid nanopatterned graphene and phase changing vanadium oxide heterostructure operating close to room temperature”) in view of Schimert (U.S. 2011/0266443) and Duraffourg (“Array of Resonant Electromechanical Nanosystems: A Technological Breakthrough for Uncooled Infrared Imaging”).
Regarding claim 1:
Shabbir discloses an infrared sensor comprising:
a substrate (Figure 5, silicon nitride);
a rear reflector on the substrate (Figure 5, Au Mirror);
a support layer carried by the substrate (Figure 5, Su-8);
a phase change material layer carried by the support layer (Figure 5, VO2);
first and second electrically conductive contacts (Figure 1, source and drain); and
a circuit (Fig. 1, voltage applied to source and drain) coupled to the first and second electrically conductive contacts and configured to
apply an electrical bias signal to the PCM layer to cause an oscillation signal to be generated within the PCM layer (Fig. 1, voltage applied to source and drain; Figure 2, oscillations shown), and
detect changes in the oscillation signal based upon IR radiation received by the PCM layer (Figure 2, oscillations in response to IR shown ).
However, Shabbir fails to disclose first and second electrically conductive contacts carried by the substrate and coupled to opposing sides of the PCM layer; detect frequency changes in the oscillation signal based upon IR radiation received by the PCM layer.
Schimert teaches first and second electrically conductive contacts (Fig. 2, 314) carried by the substrate (Fig. 2, 216) and coupled to opposing sides of the PCM layer (Fig. 2, 318).
Duraffourg detect frequency changes in the oscillation signal based upon IR radiation received by the PCM layer (Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the infrared sensor of Shabbir with the electrical contacts positioning taught by Schimert in order to prevent damage caused by heat (Schimert; [0017]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the infrared sensor of Shabbir with the frequency change detection taught by Duraffourg in order to improve thermal response by improving sensitivity (Duraffourg; Abstract). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Shabbir, Schimert and Duraffourg discloses the IR sensor of claim 1 wherein the circuit is configured to detect a frequency modulation of the oscillation signal based upon the IR radiation received by the PCM layer (Shabbir; Pg. 5, Second column, frequency modulation).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Shabbir, Schimert and Duraffourg discloses the IR sensor of claim 1 wherein the electrical bias signal causes the PCM layer to change phase periodically (Shabbir; Pg. 6, left column, phase change of PCM layer).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Shabbir, Schimert and Duraffourg discloses the IR sensor of claim 1 wherein the circuit is configured to detect changes in the oscillation signal based upon longwave infrared radiation received by the PCM layer (Shabbir; Pg. 6, left column, LWIR domain).
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Shabbir, Schimert and Duraffourg discloses The IR sensor of claim 1 wherein the PCM layer comprises vanadium dioxide (Shabbir; Figure 5, VO2).
Regarding claim 17:
Shabbir discloses a method for making an infrared sensor comprising:
forming a rear reflector on a substrate (Fig. 5, Au-Mirror);
forming a support layer on the substrate (Fig. 5, Su-8);
forming a phase change material layer on the support layer (Fig. 5, VO2);
forming first and second electrically conductive contacts (Fig. 1, Voltage contacts); and
coupling a circuit coupled to the first and second electrically conductive contacts (Fig. 1, voltage applied to source and drain),
the circuit configured to
apply an electrical bias signal to the PCM layer to cause an oscillation signal to be generated within the PCM layer (Fig. 1, voltage applied to source and drain; Figure 2, oscillations shown), and
detect changes in the oscillation signal based upon IR radiation received by the PCM layer (Figure 2, oscillations in response to IR shown ).
However, Shabbir fails to disclose first and second electrically conductive contacts carried by the substrate and coupled to opposing sides of the PCM layer; detect frequency changes in the oscillation signal based upon IR radiation received by the PCM layer.
Schimert teaches first and second electrically conductive contacts (Fig. 2, 314) carried by the substrate (Fig. 2, 216) and coupled to opposing sides of the PCM layer (Fig. 2, 318).
Duraffourg detect frequency changes in the oscillation signal based upon IR radiation received by the PCM layer (Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the infrared sensor of Shabbir with the electrical contacts positioning taught by Schimert in order to prevent damage caused by heat (Schimert; [0017]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the infrared sensor of Shabbir with the frequency change detection taught by Duraffourg in order to improve thermal response by improving sensitivity (Duraffourg; Abstract). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim(s) 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shabbir ("Plasmonically enhanced spectrally selective narrowband MWIR and LWIR light detection based on hybrid nanopatterned graphene and phase changing vanadium oxide heterostructure operating close to room temperature”) in view of Duraffourg (“Array of Resonant Electromechanical Nanosystems: A Technological Breakthrough for Uncooled Infrared Imaging”).
Regarding claim 10:
Shabbir discloses a method for operating an infrared sensor comprising a substrate, a support layer carried by the substrate, a phase change material layer carried by the support layer, and first and second electrically conductive contacts carried by the substrate and coupled to opposing sides of the PCM layer, the method comprising:
applying an electrical bias signal to the first and second electrically conductive contacts of the PCM layer to generate an oscillation signal (Fig. 1, voltage applied to source and drain; Figure 2, oscillations shown); and
detecting changes in the oscillation signal based upon IR radiation received by the PCM layer (Figure 2, oscillations in response to IR shown ).
However, Shabbir fails to disclose detecting frequency changes in the oscillation signal based upon IR radiation received by the PCM layer.
Duraffourg detecting frequency changes in the oscillation signal based upon IR radiation received by the PCM layer (Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the infrared sensor method of Shabbir with the frequency change detection taught by Duraffourg in order to improve thermal response by improving sensitivity (Duraffourg; Abstract). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Shabbir and Duraffourg discloses the method of claim 10 wherein the detecting of change comprises detecting a frequency modulation of the oscillation signal based upon the IR radiation received by the PCM layer (Shabbir; Pg. 6, left column, phase change of PCM layer).
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Shabbir and Duraffourg discloses the method of claim 10 wherein the oscillation signal causes the PCM layer to change phase periodically (Shabbir; Pg. 6, left column, phase change of PCM layer).
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Shabbir and Duraffourg discloses the method of claim 10 wherein the detecting of change comprises detecting changes in the oscillation signal based upon longwave infrared radiation received by the PCM layer (Shabbir; Pg. 6, left column, LWIR domain).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7, 9, 13, 15-16, and 18-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior arts are Shabbir ("Plasmonically enhanced spectrally selective narrowband MWIR and LWIR light detection based on hybrid nanopatterned graphene and phase changing vanadium oxide heterostructure operating close to room temperature”), Schimert (U.S. 2011/0266443), and Duraffourg (“Array of Resonant Electromechanical Nanosystems: A Technological Breakthrough for Uncooled Infrared Imaging”).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Shabbir, Schimert and Duraffourg discloses the IR sensor of claim 1 wherein the rear reflector is spaced apart from the PCM layer (Shabbir; Fig. 1 and 5, mirror and VO2 are spaced apart).
However, the combination of Shabbir, Schimert and Duraffourg fails to disclose wherein the PCM layer and the rear reflector define an optical cavity therebetween.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim. Claim 5 is allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Shabbir, Schimert and Duraffourg discloses the IR sensor of claim 1.
However, the combination of Shabbir, Schimert and Duraffourg fails to disclose wherein the circuit comprises a capacitor coupled in parallel to the first and second electrically conductive contacts, and a resistor coupled in parallel to the first and second electrically conductive contacts.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Shabbir, Schimert and Duraffourg discloses the IR sensor of claim 1,wherein the substrate comprises silicon oxide (Schimert; Fig. 3, 216).
However, the combination of Shabbir, Schimert and Duraffourg fails to disclose wherein the support layer comprises at least one of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, and sapphire; and wherein the first and second electrically conductive contacts each comprises chromium.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Shabbir and Duraffourg discloses the method of claim 10 wherein the IR sensor further comprises a rear reflector on the substrate (Shabbir; Figure 5, Au Mirror)and spaced apart from the PCM layer (Figure 5, Au mirror and PCM are spaced apart)
However, the combination of Shabbir and Duraffourg fails to disclose wherein the PCM layer and the rear reflector define an optical cavity therebetween.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Shabbir and Duraffourg discloses the method of claim 10.
However, the combination of Shabbir and Duraffourg fails to disclose operating a capacitor coupled in parallel to the first and second electrically conductive contacts, and a resistor coupled in parallel to the first and second electrically conductive contacts.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of Shabbir and Duraffourg discloses the method of claim 10 wherein the PCM layer comprises vanadium dioxide (Figure 5, VO2).
Schimert teaches wherein the substrate comprises silicon oxide (Fig. 3, 216).
However, the combination of Shabbir, Schimert and Duraffourg fails to disclose wherein the support layer comprises at least one of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, and sapphire; and wherein the first and second electrically conductive contacts each comprises chromium.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Regarding claim 18:
The combination of Shabbir, Schimert and Duraffourg discloses the method of claim 17.
However, the combination of Shabbir, Schimert and Duraffourg fails to disclose wherein the forming of the rear reflector comprises a deposition of metallic material on the substrate.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Regarding claim 19:
The combination of Shabbir, Schimert and Duraffourg discloses the method of claim 17.
However, the combination of Shabbir, Schimert and Duraffourg fails to disclose wherein the forming of the support layer comprises a chemical vapor deposition on the substrate.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Regarding claim 20:
The combination of Shabbir, Schimert and Duraffourg discloses the method of claim 17.
However, the combination of Shabbir, Schimert and Duraffourg fails to disclose wherein the forming of the PCM layer comprises a sputtering of the PCM.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884