DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 16 recites the limitation "the patterned surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 13-14 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US-2021/0318171) by Inada et al (“Inada”).
Regarding claim 13, Inada discloses in FIG. 5 and related text, e.g., a device, comprising:
a detector (300) of electromagnetic radiation; and
antireflection (AR) (28a/b; see par. 112) and/or bandpass filter (26; see par. 112) coatings deposited on a surface of the light detector (60), wherein different ones of the AR and/or bandpass filter coatings are deposited on different portions across a surface of the detector (see FIG. 5; there are multiple parts 100 of filter array 100C, each part is associated with individual 60a) with each of the different portions of the detector so that the coatings comprise pixels (exemplified by 60a, individual light-detection elements) each targeting a specific bandpass of the electromagnetic radiation (par. 112, discussion of 26 and each individual “transmission spectrum” of each individual filter 100; usage of term “band-pass filter” specifically, starts in par. 152) to provide a spatially varying photo-response to the electromagnetic radiation across the detector (by definition; best visualized by seeing FIG. 2B and related text; “spatially varying photo-response” is demonstrated).
Regarding claim 14, Inada discloses in FIG. 5 and related text, e.g., wherein the AR and/or bandpass filter coatings are deposited with different materials and/or different thicknesses on the different portions of the detector (FIG. 5 demonstrates the different thicknesses of 26, specifically).
Regarding claim 20, Inada discloses in FIG. 5 and related text, e.g., wherein the AR coatings comprise a metal oxide or a metal fluoride (see par. 23; “TiO2”) and/or the filter is a Fabry Perot cavity comprising a reflective metal layer between two dielectric layers (see pars. 115 and 23).
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 15 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-2021/0318171) by Inada et al (“Inada”).
Regarding claim 15, Inada discloses in FIG. 5 and related text, e.g., substantially the entire claim structure, as recited in above claims, except “wherein the AR and/or bandpass filters are deposited with sub-nanometer precision”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Inada with “wherein the AR and/or bandpass filters are deposited with sub-nanometer precision”, in order to receive a more precisely functioning device (it is common sense (not even POSITA level knowledge; it is way below POSITA level knowledge) that the more precisely one forms a device (sub-nanometer precision in instant case), the more precisely will the final device function; hence, use of “sub-nanometer precision” manufacturing is beyond obvious if the goal is to receive a more precisely functioning device.
Regarding claim 21, Inada discloses in FIG. 5 and related text, e.g., substantially the entire claim structure, as recited in above claims, except “wherein the coatings are each positioned to form an array of the pixels with a precision in a range of 1-10 nm in a z-plane of the detector and/or positioned with a precision of 1-100 microns in an x-y plane of the detector”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Inada with “wherein the coatings are each positioned to form an array of the pixels with a precision in a range of 1-10 nm in a z-plane of the detector and/or positioned with a precision of 1-100 microns in an x-y plane of the detector”, in order to receive a more precisely functioning device (it is common sense (not even POSITA level knowledge; it is way below POSITA level knowledge) that the more precisely one forms a device (sub-nanometer precision in instant case), the more precisely will the final device function; hence, use of “sub-nanometer precision” manufacturing is beyond obvious if the goal is to receive a more precisely functioning device.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-2021/0318171) by Inada et al (“Inada”) in view of (US-2011/0133061) by Yu et al (“Yu”).
Regarding claim 16, Inada discloses in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entire claim structure, as recited in above claims, except “wherein the detector consists essentially of a single material across the patterned surface”.
Inada’s invention deals mostly with “filter array” 100C. The underlying detector (“image sensor” 60) is simply not discussed much. However, Yu fixes the deficiency by providing the necessary teachings regarding the underlying detector.
Yu discloses in FIGs. 4A-C and related text, e.g., “wherein the detector consists essentially of a single material (par. 128; detector materials are discussed; only “single material” options are discussed) across the patterned surface (Examiner does not know what this means; see 112, indefinite rejection above)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Inada with “wherein the detector consists essentially of a single material across the patterned surface” as taught by Yu, in order to simplify the processing steps of making the detector part of the invention by using well-known elements of manufacturing in a well-known way (this invention is from 2009; in semiconductor industry, where there is a new generation of chips produced every 12-18 months, this means that the reference is at least 8 generations old; hence, “well-known elements” and “well-known way”).
Regarding claim 17, the combined device of Inada and Yu disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the light detector consists essentially of silicon (see par. 128 of Yu; silicon is explicitly taught).
Regarding claim 18, the combined device of Inada and Yu disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the light detector comprises a delta doped or a superlattice doped surface layer providing passivation of a near-surface band structure (see par. 174 of Yu; the specified procedure is explicitly taught).
Regarding claim 19, the combined device of Inada and Yu disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entire claim structure, as recited in above claims, including wherein the AR and/or bandpass filter coatings each have a bandwidth tailored for the different frequency response of the silicon to ultraviolet (UV) light (silicon is discussed by Yu (see claim 17); ultra-violet applications are also discussed by Yu (see pars. 167, 204); they are also discussed by Inada in par. 92; hence, meeting limitations), so that the detector has a quantum efficiency for UV wavelengths between 110 nm and 300 nm (see par. 92 regarding wavelengths; the limitations are taught by overlapping range; quantum efficiency of some sort of course exists (par. 10 of Yu; par. 113 of Inada).
Inada and Yu do not explicitly state “so that the detector has a quantum efficiency greater than 50% for UV wavelengths between 110 nm and 300 nm”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the device of Inada and Yu with “so that the detector has a quantum efficiency greater than 50% for UV wavelengths between 110 nm and 300 nm”, since it is notoriously well-known that high quantum efficiency is better than low quantum efficiency.
Examiner’s Note: please note that the limitations of “so that the detector has a quantum efficiency greater than 50%” in a claim drawn to device. To elaborate briefly, the cited limitations are NOT structure, but instead a performance metric – how the device performs when measured with appropriate measurement device. Hence, the limitations are not patentable in a claim drawn to device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to above claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Conclusion
Additional references (if any) are cited on the PTO-892 as disclosing similar features to those of the instant invention.
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 extension fee 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 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
10/01/26
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights