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 .
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are rejected in view of unclear presentation of claim 1. For examination purpose claim 1 has be rewritten as indicated in the rejection of claim 1 below.
Claims 3 and 4 are also rejected in view of the limitation “if said at least…” In view of the conditional limitation “if said”, a person having ordinary skills in the art will find the claims unclear because it would be uncertain if the limitation associated with “if said” is positively required in the device.
For examination purpose, the claims would be considered not required because it is not certain that the claimed invention has the claimed limitation.
Claim 10 which depend on claim 9 is also rejected in view of the limitation wherein the type-III-V semiconductors used by the method of the invention are InGaAsSb semiconductors on a GaSb substrate or superlattice semiconductors of the InGaAs/GaAsSb family on an InP substrate.
As note in claim 9 upon which claim 10 depends, it is noted that the type-III-V semiconductors used by the method of the invention are InGaAs semiconductors on an InP substrate. Thus, a person having ordinary skills in the art will find claim 10 unclear because the materials of the III-V semiconductors and substrate have already been disclosed in claim 9 –i.e., the materials of layers in claim are 10 are totally different from those of claim 9.
For examination purpose, since the materials of the III-V semiconductors and substrate have already been disclosed in claim 9, claim 10 would be considered not applicable.
It should be noted that claims 6 and 7 are not rejected in view of a prior art because no prior art was found to anticipated or make obvious the limitations of claim 6. However, the allowability of the claims can not be ascertained because to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) because the material limitation of claim 10 does not further limit the limitations of claim 9.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements
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.
Claims 1, 5, 8-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iguchi [US PGPUB 20070096178].
Regarding claim 1, Iguchi (according to the embodiment of Fig. 6 and the understanding that when forming a p-type photodiode, a p-type absorption layer and, as required, a p-type window layer are provided on a p-type substrate by epitaxial growth and n-regions are formed by the diffusion of a dopant (Para 50-54)) teaches a method for fabricating an optoelectronic component comprising at least one photodiode, the method comprising at least the steps of:
producing multiple epitaxial growths (Para 55) on at least an upper part of an p- doped semiconductor substrate (2, Para 60 –p-type in view of p-type photodiode, Para 50-54) to obtain a stack of semiconductor layers (3, 4, and 25, Para 55, Fig. 6), the stack being above the substrate (Fig. 6), and composed of a p-type absorption layer (3, Para 55 –p-type in view of p-type photodiode, Para 50-54), a lightly doped electron collection layer (region 5 of layer 4, Para 55 – n-type in view of p-type photodiode, thus n-type region would collect electrons, Para 50-54) having a large forbidden band (it should be noted that the limitation lightly doped and large forbidden band are relative measures) and large forbidden band is a relative measure); and
producing an n-doping-based pixelation (n-region of layer 25, see Fig. 1; wherein the region in Fig. 6 would n-type in view of p-type photodiode, Para 50-54) at the surface barrier layer (Fig. 6), the pixelation comprising metallizations (7/8, Para 55) to create electrical contacts for said at least one photodiode (Fig. 6), firstly on the n-doped pixelated surface barrier layer (Fig. 6; i.e., metallizations 7) and secondly on the p-doped upper part of the semiconductor substrate (Fig. 6; i.e., metallization 8 –wherein buffer layer can be omitted, Para 73).
Regarding claim 5, Iguchi teaches a method wherein the step of producing a surface barrier layer having a large forbidden band comprises epitaxially growing a barrier layer based on a heavily n+-doped semiconductor material (Para 50-54; it should be noted that heavily n+ is a relative measure).
Regarding claim 8, Iguchi teaches a method wherein the semiconductors used by the method of the invention are type-III-V semiconductors (Para 60).
Regarding claim 9, Iguchi teaches a method wherein the type-III-V semiconductors used by the method of the invention are InGaAs semiconductors on an InP substrate (Para 60).
Regarding claim 11, Iguchi teaches a photodiode obtained by way of a fabrication method comprising at least the steps of claim 1 (modified device of Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12, Iguchi teaches an optoelectronic component comprising at least one photodiode according to claim 11 (Para 2/4).
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 (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 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi in view of Hekmatshoar-Tabar et al. [US PGPUB 20120312361] (hereinafter Hekmatshoar-Tabar).
Regarding claim 2, Iguchi teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which it depends.
Iguchi does not specifically disclose a method wherein the step of producing an absorption layer comprises a step of p-doping the material of said absorption layer in a uniform or graded manner.
Referring the invention of Hekmatshoar-Tabar, Hekmatshoar-Tabar teaches forming of an absorption layer 10 as graded or uniform (Para 30).
In view of such teaching by Hekmatshoar-Tabar, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Iguchi comprise the teachings of Hekmatshoar-Tabar at least based on the rationale of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way using (MPEP 2143.I.C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 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, William Partridge can be reached at (571)270-1402. 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.
/ISMAIL A MUSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812