DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, encompassing claims 1-14 in reply filed on October 20, 2025 is acknowledged.
The arguments state that there would not have be a serious burden because the groups are directed towards a single general inventive concept. The Examiner disagrees due to the differences in the two inventions which would additionally need to be searched as presented in the restriction requirement. Moreover, the Examiner notes that upon determination of allowability of the elected device claims, the Applicant may incorporate the allowable subject matter into the method claims which would be rejoined and allowed as well.
Therefore, the restriction is maintained and made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2021/0216743 A1), hereinafter as L1
4. Regarding Claim 1, L1 discloses a sensing device (see in particular Fig. 9 and [0063] “sensing photodiode D11”), comprising:
a substrate (element 100, see [0063] “substrate 100”);
a circuit layer (layer comprising element C1, see [0061] “capacitor C1”) disposed on the substrate (see Fig. 9);
a photosensitive element (element D11, including elements P1,P2,P3, see [0063]) disposed on the substrate and electrically connected to the circuit layer (see Fig. 9);
a light-shielding layer (element 90, see [0064] “light shielding structure 90”) disposed on the photosensitive element and having an opening (opening of element 901, see [0063] “opening 901”) overlapping the photosensitive element (see Fig. 9); and
a conductive layer (element ITO-1, see [0060] “conductive layer ITO-1 may be electrically connected with the sensing photodiode D11 (e.g. the semiconductor layer P3)”; see Figs. 8-9) disposed on the light-shielding layer (see Fig. 9), wherein the conductive layer passes through the opening and is electrically connected to the photosensitive element (see Fig. 9).
5. Regarding Claim 4, L1 discloses the sensing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the circuit layer comprises a thin-film transistor (comprises element M1, see [0052] “Regions of transistors M1, M2, M5”), and the photosensitive element overlaps a source electrode or a drain electrode of the thin-film transistor (see Fig. 9).
6. Regarding Claim 6, L1 discloses the sensing device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a transparent conductive layer disposed between the photosensitive element and the conductive layer (see TABLE “Conductive Layer” provides “Transparent conductive material may be, for example, a transparent conductive oxide (TCO), such as an ITO (Indium tin oxide) or an IZO (Indium Doped Zinc Oxide) or a combination of the above materials” and see [0059] “conductive layer ITO-1” selected to be a combination of transparent conductive material such as ITO and IZO such that the layer closer to the photosensitive element is corresponded to the transparent conductive layer and the layer further is corresponded to the conductive layer).
7. Regarding Claim 7, L1 discloses the sensing device as claimed in claim 6, wherein in a cross-section of the sensing device, a first edge of the transparent conductive layer and a first edge of the photosensitive element are adjacent to each other and separated by a first distance (see Figs. 8-9 the transparent conductive layer first left edge at a height of element 616 adjacent and separated with a first left edge of the photosensitive element D11).
8. Regarding Claim 8, L1 discloses the sensing device as claimed in claim 7, wherein the first edge of the transparent conductive layer is indented compared to the first edge of the photosensitive element (see Figs. 8-9 the first left edge of element ITO-1 combination of materials at element 616 is indented compared to the first left edge of element D11).
9. Regarding Claim 9, L1 discloses the sensing device as claimed in claim 7, wherein a second edge of the transparent conductive layer and a second edge of the photosensitive element are adjacent to each other and separated by a second distance, and the second distance is different from the first distance (see Figs. 8-9 a second right edge of the element ITO-1 combination of materials at element 617 and a second right edge of element D11 are separated by a second distance, and the second distance is different from the first distance).
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
10. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu et al. (US 2021/0216743 A1), hereinafter as L1, in view of Kanda (US 2023/0349806 A1), hereinafter as K1
11. Regarding Claim 2, L1 discloses the sensing device as claimed in claim 1, the light-shielding layer is electrically connected to the conductive layer (see Fig. 9 direct physical and electrical contact between the two elements).
L1 does not disclose wherein the light-shielding layer comprises a metal material.
K1 discloses wherein the light-shielding layer comprises a metal material (see [0035] “light-shielding member 44 may be, for example, a black resin layer (black matrix) containing black pigment or dye, a black metal layer such as a chromium (Cr) layer, or a colored glass plate or colored plastic plate in black or other dark color”).
The material of the light-shielding layer as taught by K1 is incorporated as a material of the light shielding layer of L1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate the teachings of K1 with L1 because the combination is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results – simple substitution of one known material of a light-shielding layer in a similar sensing device for another for which the material are provided as alternatively selectable to obtain predictable results (see K1 [0035] and see L1 [0065] both commonly disclose at least black resin and pigment/ink).
12. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu et al. (US 2021/0216743 A1), hereinafter as L1, in view of Kitamura (WO 2018180577 A1, see attached translation document), hereinafter as K2
13. Regarding Claim 3, L1 discloses the sensing device as claimed in claim 1, the light-shielding layer is in contact with the conductive layer (see Fig. 9 direct contact between the two elements).
L1 does not disclose wherein the light-shielding layer comprises an organic material.
K2 discloses wherein the light-shielding layer comprises an organic material (see pg. 8 “As the
material of the light shielding wall 48, a black resin (black organic film) or the like can be used in addition to a metal material such as tungsten or aluminum” The black resin organic film).
The material of the light-shielding layer as taught by K1 is incorporated as a material of the light shielding layer of L1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate the teachings of K2 with L1 because the combination is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results – simple substitution of one known material of a light-shielding layer in a similar sensing device for another for which the material are provided as alternatively selectable to obtain predictable results (see K2 pg. 8 and see L1 [0065] both commonly disclose at least black resin).
14. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu et al. (US 2021/0216743 A1), hereinafter as L1, in view of Arahata et al. (US 2021/0126036 A1), hereinafter as A1
15. Regarding Claim 5, L1 discloses the sensing device as claimed in claim 4.
L1 does not disclose wherein the photosensitive element is in contact with the source electrode or the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor.
A1 discloses wherein the photosensitive element is in contact with the source electrode or the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor (see Figs. 5-6 and [0236] “The transfer transistor 142 controls the readout of photocharge from the photodiode 141. The transfer transistor 142 has a drain electrode connected to the floating diffusion and a source electrode connected to the cathode electrode of the photodiode 141”).
The circuit connection between the photosensitive element and thin-film transistor as taught by A1 is incorporated as the circuit connection between the photosensitive element and thin-film transistor of L1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate the teachings of A1 with L1 because the combination is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results – simple substitution of one known circuit connection with a photosensitive element for another in a similar device to obtain predictable results (see A1 Figs. 5-6 and [0236]).
16. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu et al. (US 2021/0216743 A1), hereinafter as L1, in view of Jeon et al. (US 2020/0200925 A1), hereinafter as J1.
17. Regarding Claim 10, L1 discloses the sensing device as claimed in claim 6.
L1 does not disclose wherein the photosensitive element has a recess, and the recess at least partially surrounds the transparent conductive layer.
J1 discloses (see Fig. 4) wherein the photosensitive element (PD3, see [0093] “photo-sensing elements PD3 and PD4”) has a recess (recessed area at the central top portion), and the recess at least partially surrounds the transparent conductive layer (element 123, see [0103] “second electrode 123 may be made of one selected from ITO (Indium Tin Oxide), IZO (Indium Zinc Oxide) and ZnO (Zinc Oxide)”).
The recess as taught by J1 is incorporated as a recess of L1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate the teachings of J1 with L1 because the combination is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results – simple substitution of one known photodiode shape for another in a similar device to obtain predictable results (see J1 Fig. 4).
18. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu et al. (US 2021/0216743 A1), hereinafter as L1, in view of Jeon et al. (US 2020/0200925 A1), hereinafter as J1, in view of Huang et al. (US 2020/0258935 A1), hereinafter as H1
19. Regarding Claim 11, L1, J1 disclose the sensing device as claimed in claim 10, wherein (see L1) the photosensitive element comprises a first-type semiconductor layer (element P1, see [0060] “The sensing photodiode D11 may include a semiconductor layer P1, an intrinsic semiconductor layer P2 and a semiconductor layer P3”), a second-type semiconductor layer (element P3, see [0060]) and an intrinsic semiconductor layer (element P2, see [0060]) disposed between the first-type semiconductor layer and the second-type semiconductor layer (Note, the elements P1 and P3 must be different type semiconductors in order for it to function as a “sensing photodiode”).
L1, J1 do not explicitly disclose the recess extends downward from the transparent conductive layer to the intrinsic semiconductor layer.
H1 discloses the recess extends downward from the transparent conductive layer to the intrinsic semiconductor layer (see Fig. 6 the recess extends downwards from the transparent conductive layer of element 6041 to a depth of the intrinsic semiconductor layer element 6003, see [0053] “transparent electrode layer 6041” and see [0037] “intrinsic silicon layer 103” and see [0047, 0050]).
The recess depth to the intrinsic layer of the photodiode as taught by H1 is incorporated as the recess depth to the intrinsic layer of the photodiode of L1, J1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate the teachings of H1 with L1, J1 because the combination is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results – simple substitution of one known photodiode recess depth for another in a similar device to obtain predictable results (see H1 Fig. 6, and see J1 Fig. 4).
20. Regarding Claim 12, L1,J1 disclose the sensing device as claimed in claim 10, wherein the conductive layer is disposed on the transparent conductive layer and is electrically connected to the transparent conductive layer, and a portion of the conductive layer is disposed in the recess (see L1 Fig. 9 and J1 Fig. 6 the conductive layer and transparent conductive layer are layers of element ITO-1 of L1, which in combination with J1 has a portion which is disposed in the recess).
21. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu et al. (US 2021/0216743 A1), hereinafter as L1, in view of Hayashi et al. (US 2009/0026509 A1), hereinafter as H2
22. Regarding Claim 13, L1 discloses the sensing device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an insulating layer (element 616, see [0058] “insulating layer 616”) disposed on the circuit layer, wherein the photosensitive element comprises a first-type semiconductor layer (element P1, see [0060] “The sensing photodiode D11 may include a semiconductor layer P1, an intrinsic semiconductor layer P2 and a semiconductor layer P3”), a second-type semiconductor layer (element P3, see [0060]) and an intrinsic semiconductor layer (element P2, see [0060]) disposed between the first-type semiconductor layer and the second-type semiconductor layer (see Figs. 8-9).
L1 does not explicitly disclose a portion of the insulating layer is disposed between the first-type semiconductor layer and the intrinsic semiconductor layer.
H2 discloses (see Figs. 6A-B) a portion of the insulating layer (element 13, see [0035] “second passivation film 13”) is disposed between the first-type semiconductor layer (element 9, see [0053] “P-doped amorphous silicon film 9”) and the intrinsic semiconductor layer (element 10, see [0053] “intrinsic amorphous silicon film 10”) (see [0034] “the contact hole CH1 is tapered” and [0060] “When the contact holes are formed so as to have a tapered shape in cross section, step coverage of the upper layer is increased and the occurrence of a wire break, for example, can be reduced” meaning there is a recessed sidewall portion where element 13 is between elements 9 and 10).
The tapered sidewall of the photosensitive element as taught by H2 is incorporated as a tapered sidewall of the photosensitive element of L1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate the teachings of H2 with L1 because the combination allows for step coverage of the upper layer to be increased and reduce wire break occurrences (see H2 [0060]); furthermore, the combination is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results – simple substitution of one known photosensitive element sidewall shape for another in a similar device to obtain predictable results (see H2 Fig. 6A-B and [0060]).
Allowable Subject Matter
23. Claim 14 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 an examiner’s statement of reason for indicating allowable subject matter:
The prior art made of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest at least the claim limitations of:
24. Claim 14, “the insulating layer has a plurality of openings, and the intrinsic semiconductor layer is in contact with the first-type semiconductor layer through the plurality of openings” – as instantly claimed and in combination with the additionally claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL PARK whose telephone number is (303)297-4277. The examiner can normally be reached Normal Schedule: M-F Sometime between 6:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m..
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, Steven H. Loke can be reached on (571) 272-1657. 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.
/SAMUEL PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2818