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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.\
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 9-10 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a bandpass filter layer stacked on the semiconductor structure". This limitation in the claim is unclear if this is the same or a different “bandpass filter” as "a bandpass filter layer stacked on the semiconductor structure" is previously claimed in Claim 1. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret "a bandpass filter layer stacked on the semiconductor structure" as “the bandpass filter layer stacked on the semiconductor structure”, as interpreted from the Applicant’s Drawings. Claim 10 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as it depends from and includes all of the limitations of Claim 9.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a plurality of sidewalls”. This limitation in the claim is unclear if this is the same or a different “plurality of sidewalls” as " a plurality of sidewalls" is previously claimed in Claim 1. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret "a plurality of sidewalls" as “the plurality of sidewalls”, as interpreted from the Applicant’s Drawings. Claim 10 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as it depends from and includes all of the limitations of Claim 9.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “an entry of external light”. This limitation in the claim is unclear if this is the same or a different “entry of external light” as "an entry of external light" is previously claimed in Claim 1. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret " an entry of external light" as “the entry of external light”, as interpreted from the Applicant’s Drawings. Claim 10 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as it depends from and includes all of the limitations of Claim 9.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a scorched surface”. This limitation in the claim is unclear if this is the same or a different “a scorched surface” as "a scorched surface" is previously claimed in Claim 1. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret " a scorched surface" as “the scorched surface”, as interpreted from the Applicant’s Drawings. Claim 10 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as it depends from and includes all of the limitations of Claim 9.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a semiconductor structure”. This limitation in the claim is unclear if this is the same or a different “a semiconductor structure” as "a semiconductor structure " is previously claimed in Claim 1. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret " a semiconductor structure " as “the semiconductor structure”, as interpreted from the Applicant’s Drawings. Claim 10 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as it depends from and includes all of the limitations of Claim 9.
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, 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 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume (US 20220155417 A1) hereinafter “Kume” in view of Fukawa et al. (JP 2004071734 A) hereinafter “Fukawa.” A machine translation of Fukawa has been attached.
Regarding Claim 1, Figures 8-10 of Kume teach: A manufacturing method (Paragraph 0089) of a light sensing element (3), the method comprising the following steps: providing a preformed structure (3W), wherein the preformed structure comprises a semiconductor structure (3a) and a bandpass filter layer (54) stacked on the semiconductor structure (Figure 20); performing at least one cutting process (Paragraph 0090) on the preformed structure in a direction perpendicular to a surface of the bandpass filter layer to cut the preformed structure into a plurality of light sensing elements (Figure 11); wherein each of the light sensing elements has a plurality of sidewalls (inherent after cutting)
Kume does not teach: a laser cutting process and each of the sidewalls forms a scorched surface by the at least one laser cutting process to block an entry of external light.
Figure 4 of Fukawa teaches: a printed circuit board (1) comprising an LED (9) and a phototransistor (10) wherein laser light is irradiated along a line that passes between the LED and the phototransistor forming recesses such that each of the sidewalls forms a carbide surface (2; Paragraph 0024) to block an entry of external light (Paragraph 0024).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a laser cutting process and each of the sidewalls forms a scorched surface by the at least one laser cutting process to block an entry of external light because Fukawa teaches a laser irradiation process that forms scorched surfaces on the sidewalls of light receiving elements creates a carbonized light-shielding film such that incident light is only from above, and the light shielding property is further enhanced (Fukawa Paragraph 0026).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kume and Fukawa teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as stated above.
Kume does not teach: wherein the scorched surface is composed of carbide.
However, the combination of the structure of Kume with the laser irradiation process of Fukawa will yield a structure such that the scorched surface is composed of carbide.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Kume and Fukawa teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as stated above.
Kume does not teach: the scorched surface at least covers side positions of the semiconductor structure.
However, the combination of the structure of Kume with the laser irradiation process of Fukawa will yield a structure such that the scorched surface at least covers side positions of the semiconductor structure.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume (US 20220155417 A1) hereinafter “Kume” in view of Fukawa et al. (JP 2004071734 A) hereinafter “Fukawa” and Liang et al. (US 20230009077 A1) hereinafter “Liang.”
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Kume and Fukawa teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as stated above.
Kume does not teach: wherein carbon content of the scorched surface is not less than 5%, and oxygen content of the scorched surface is not less than 5%.
Figure 2C of Liang teaches: a carbide barrier layer (136N-136P) wherein the carbon content of the carbide is about 10 atomic % to about 40 atomic % (Paragraph 0037) and the oxygen content of the carbide is 30 atomic % to about 55 atomic % (Paragraph 0037).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the carbon content of the scorched surface is not less than 5%, and oxygen content of the scorched surface is not less than 5% because Liang teaches carbide layers with these parameters create barrier layers with greater chemical stability and thermal stability (Liang Paragraph 0037).
Furthermore, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In the instant case, the claimed range, of “not less than 5%” overlaps the range of Liang of “10-40 atomic % and 30-55 atomic %”.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume (US 20220155417 A1) hereinafter “Kume” in view of Fukawa et al. (JP 2004071734 A) hereinafter “Fukawa” and Steinberg et al. (US 20240047603 A1) hereinafter “Steinberg.”
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kume and Fukawa teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as stated above.
Kume does not teach: the semiconductor structure is made of III-V group semiconductor materials.
Figure 1B of Steinberg teaches: a semiconductor structure 100’ made of III-V group semiconductor materials (Paragraph 0043; InGaAs and InP)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the semiconductor structure is made of III-V group semiconductor materials because Steinberg teaches III-V group semiconductor materials are used in electro-optical heterostructure semiconductor devices (Steinberg Paragraph 0007).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kume, Fukawa, and Steinberg teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as stated above.
Kume does not teach: the semiconductor structure is composed of a compound semiconductor of indium phosphide and indium gallium arsenide.
Figure 1B of Steinberg teaches: the semiconductor structure (100’) is composed of a compound semiconductor of indium phosphide and indium gallium arsenide (Paragraph 0043).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the semiconductor structure is composed of a compound semiconductor of indium phosphide and indium gallium arsenide because Steinberg teaches these materials are utilized for low charge carrier barriers in electro-optical heterostructure semiconductor devices (Steinberg Paragraph 0007).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume (US 20220155417 A1) hereinafter “Kume” in view of Fukawa et al. (JP 2004071734 A) hereinafter “Fukawa” and Ryo et al. (US 20220392805 A1) hereinafter “Ryo.”
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Kume and Fukawa teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as stated above.
Kume does not teach: the at least one laser cutting process comprises a first laser cutting process, a second laser cutting process and a third laser cutting process, and an output power, a reference frequency and a moving speed of a laser used in the first laser cutting process are 0.2-1 W, 10-18 kHz, 30-70 mm/s, respectively.
Figure 4 of Ryo teaches: a workpiece (11) comprising a plurality of devices (19) wherein a laser processing apparatus (40) performs a series of cuts (Paragraph 0106), wherein an output power is in a predetermined value in the range of 0.01 to 100.0 W (Paragraph 0102), a frequency set to a predetermined frequency in the range of 5 to 50000 kHz (Paragraph 0101), and a speed that has a predetermined value in the range of 20 to 10000 mm/s.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one laser cutting process comprises a first laser cutting process, a second laser cutting process and a third laser cutting process, and an output power, a reference frequency and a moving speed of a laser used in the first laser cutting process are 0.2-1 W, 10-18 kHz, 30-70 mm/s, respectively because Ryo teaches laser apparatuses with a wide range of power, frequency, and speed values can be utilized to process semiconductor work pieces (Ryo Paragraph 0106).
Furthermore, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In the instant case, the claimed ranges, 0.2-1 W, 10-18 kHz, 30-70 mm/s, lies inside the ranges of Ryo, 0.01 to 100.0 W, 5 to 50000 kHz, and 20 to 10000 mm/s.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Kume, Fukawa, and Ryo teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as stated above.
Kume does not teach: an output power, a reference frequency and a moving speed of lasers used in the second laser cutting process and the third laser cutting process are 1-5 W, 8-13 kHz, and 100-180 mm/s, respectively.
Figure 4 of Ryo teaches: a workpiece (11) comprising a plurality of devices (19) wherein a laser processing apparatus (40) performs a series of cuts (Paragraph 0106), wherein an output power is in a predetermined value in the range of 0.01 to 100.0 W (Paragraph 0102), a frequency set to a predetermined frequency in the range of 5 to 50000 kHz (Paragraph 0101), and a speed that has a predetermined value in the range of 20 to 10000 mm/s.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to an output power, a reference frequency and a moving speed of lasers used in the second laser cutting process and the third laser cutting process are 1-5 W, 8-13 kHz, and 100-180 mm/s, respectively because Ryo teaches laser apparatuses with a wide range of power, frequency, and speed values can be utilized to process semiconductor work pieces (Ryo Paragraph 0106).
Furthermore, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In the instant case, the claimed ranges, 1-5 W, 8-13 kHz, and 100-180 mm/s, lies inside the ranges of Ryo, 0.01 to 100.0 W, 5 to 50000 kHz, and 20 to 10000 mm/s.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume (US 20220155417 A1) hereinafter “Kume” in view of Fukawa et al. (JP 2004071734 A) hereinafter “Fukawa” and Park et al. (US 20190228204 A1) hereinafter “Park.”
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Kume and Fukawa teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as stated above.
Figures 8-10 of Kume teach: the light sensing element (3) comprising: the semiconductor structure (3a), the plurality of sidewalls (inherent after cutting); and the bandpass filter layer stacked on the semiconductor structure.
Kume does not teach: each of the sidewalls forming a scorched surface to block an entry of external light;
However, the combination of the structure of Kume with the laser cutting process of Fukawa, a structure will be yielded such that each of the sidewalls forming a scorched surface to block an entry of external light.
Kume does not teach: the semiconductor structure including a light absorbing layer
Figure 6B of Park teaches: a semiconductor structure (combination of 500 and 400) that includes a light absorbing layer (440).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the semiconductor structure including a light absorbing layer because Park teaches a light absorbing layer prevents rays of light having an incidence angle other than the detection-target incidence angle from passing through the optical path (Park Paragraph 0110).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume (US 20220155417 A1) hereinafter “Kume” in view of Fukawa et al. (JP 2004071734 A) hereinafter “Fukawa,” Park et al. (US 20190228204 A1) hereinafter “Park,” and Rowlands et al. (US 20200209448 A1) hereinafter “Rowlands.”
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Kume, Fukawa, and Park teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention.
Kume does not teach: the bandpass filter layer is stacked with a combination of 15-20 groups of hydrogen silicide material layers and silicon dioxide material layers.
Figure 1A of Rowlands teaches: a bandpass filter (100; Paragraph 0047) wherein the bandpass filter includes 10 to 40 layers (Paragraph 0032) of hydrogen silicide (Paragraph 0025) and silicon dioxide (Paragraph 0027).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the bandpass filter layer is stacked with a combination of 15-20 groups of hydrogen silicide material layers and silicon dioxide material layers because Rowlands teaches a bandpass filter utilizes stacked material layers to provide low angle shift that can substantially block or effectively screen out ambient light and pass through NIR light (Rowlands Paragraph 0023).
Further, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In the instant case, the claimed range of 15-20 groups, lies inside the range of Rowlands, 10-40 layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Halee Cramer whose telephone number is (571)270-1641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/HALEE CRAMER/Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights