DETAILED ACTION
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 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-2016/0273958) by Hoenk et al (“Hoenk”).
Regarding claim 12, Hoenk discloses in FIG. 7 and related text, e.g., a device manufactured by the method of claim 1 (For the purposes of rejection, claim 12 rejection is virtually identical to rejection of claim 13 (see directly below), because the method limitations are not given patentable weight in a claim drawn to device).
Regarding the process limitations of claim 12, these would not carry patentable weight in this claim drawn to a structure, because distinct structure is not necessarily produced.
Note that a "product by process" claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
Regarding claim 13, Hoenk discloses in FIG. 7 and related text, e.g., a device, comprising:
a detector of electromagnetic radiation (702); and
one or more antireflection (AR) and/or bandpass filter coatings (714) deposited on a surface of the light detector, wherein the AR and/or bandpass filter coatings are deposited on different portions of the light detector to provide a butcher-block style response profile (not shown in FIG. 7; see FIG. 5A; shows 3 different filters (a-c), all with “butcher-block style response profile”) with each of the different portions of the detector targeting a specific bandpass of the electromagnetic radiation (x-axis in FIG. 5A) and/or having a spatially varying photo-response to the electromagnetic radiation.
Hoenk does not explicitly state that “one or more antireflection (AR) and/or bandpass filter coatings deposited on a surface of the light detector, wherein the AR and/or bandpass filter coatings are deposited on different portions of the light 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 Hoenk with “one or more antireflection (AR) and/or bandpass filter coatings deposited on a surface of the light detector, wherein the AR and/or bandpass filter coatings are deposited on different portions of the light detector”, since Hoenk is explicitly teaching various filters (FIG. 5A) and alludes to putting them all together (par. 83), and the integration of the various devices into a single device is the whole purpose of integrated circuits and of semiconductor industry.
Regarding claim 14, Hoenk discloses in FIG. 7 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 (pars. 83-87, also FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 15, Hoenk discloses in FIG. 7 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 further modify the device of Hoenk 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) that the more precisely one forms a device (sub-nanometer precision in instant case), the more precisely will the final device function.
Regarding claim 16, Hoenk discloses in FIG. 7 and related text, e.g., wherein the light detector consists essentially of a single material across the patterned surface (par. 96; “silicon epilayer 702”).
Regarding claim 17, Hoenk discloses in FIG. 7 and related text, e.g., wherein the light detector consists essentially of silicon (par. 96; “silicon epilayer 702”).
Regarding claim 18, Hoenk discloses in FIG. 7 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 (706/708; pars. 78 & 100).
Regarding claim 19, Hoenk discloses in FIG. 7 and related text, e.g., 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 (see FIG. 5A), so that the detector has a quantum efficiency greater than 50% (claim 12; “greater than 40%; hence, greater than 50% is at the very least obvious, by overlapping range) for UV wavelengths between 110 nm and 300 nm (see FIG. 5A; wavelengths between 110 nm and 300 nm are shown).
Regarding claim 20, Hoenk discloses in FIG. 7 and related text, e.g., wherein the AR coatings comprise a metal oxide or a metal fluoride (par. 69) and/or the filter is a Fabry Perot cavity (par. 82) comprising a reflective metal layer between two dielectric layers (see FIG. 5A; such an example is explicitly shown).
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
03/21/26
/Mounir S Amer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818