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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brendel (2003/0017712).
Re claim 1, Brendel discloses (Fig. 1) a metal layer (24) composed of an inverted truncated-pyramid structure (ITPS) array to absorb an incident light; wherein a cross-section of each inverted truncated-pyramid structure of the ITPS array comprises an upper base and a lower base, and a length of the upper base is greater than a length of the lower base (Fig. 8).
Re claim 3, Brendel discloses wherein a bottom surface of each inverted truncated-pyramid structure comprises the lower base, and the bottom surface is hollow (abstract & [0091]).
Re claim 7, Brendel discloses wherein the upper base faces the incident light (34) (Fig. 1f).
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (2022/0190010).
Re claim 1, Wang discloses (Fig. 4) a metal layer (metal) composed of an inverted truncated-pyramid structure (ITPS) array to absorb an incident light; wherein a cross-section of each inverted truncated-pyramid structure of the ITPS array comprises an upper base and a lower base, and a length of the upper base is greater than a length of the lower base (Fig. 4).
Re claim 6, Wang discloses wherein an absorption of the light-absorbing structure is less than 50% for the incident light in the wavelength range of 400-1000nm ([0055], the claimed range being 360 nm to 830 nm which falls within the reference’s range).
Re claim 7, Wang discloses wherein the upper base faces the incident light (Fig. 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(s) 2, 4, 5 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brendel as applied to claims 1, 3 and 7 above, and further in view of the following comments.
Re claims 2, 4 and 5, Brendel does not disclose a thickness of the metal layer, a ratio of a central wavelength of the incident light to the length of the lower base, and a ratio of the length of the upper base to the length of the lower base.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited thickness and ratios through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device dimension, device associated characteristics and device density on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of thickness and ratios, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness and ratios or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen thickness and ratios or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen thickness and ratios are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 8, Brendel discloses (Fig. 1) semiconductor layer (18/22) having an inverted truncated-pyramid structure (ITPS) array; a metal layer (24) forms Schottky contact with a surface of the ITPS array; a first electrode (25) in contact with an upper surface of the metal layer; a second electrode (30) forming ohmic contact with a lower surface of the semiconductor layer; wherein a cross-section of each inverted truncated-pyramid structure of the ITPS array comprises an upper base and a lower base, and a length of the upper base is greater than a length of the lower base.
The presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965). For example, “wherein carriers in the metal layer or the semiconductor layer are excited by an incident light to form hot carriers crossing a junction between the metal layer and the semiconductor layer to generate a photocurrent”.
Also, intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable to performing the intended use, and then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process to making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In Re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In Regarding claim Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Re claims 9, 10, 12 and 13, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited wavelengths, thickness and ratios through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device dimension, device associated characteristics and device density on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of wavelengths, thickness and ratios, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed wavelengths, thickness and ratios or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen wavelengths, thickness and ratios or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen wavelengths, thickness and ratios are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 11, Brendel discloses wherein a bottom surface of each inverted truncated- pyramid structure of the ITPS array comprises the lower base, and there is free of the metal layer above the bottom surface (hollow~ [0091]).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2019/00743009 and US 2007/0284685 disclose a similar configuration for a light absorbing structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1858. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/MICHELLE MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 December 22, 2025