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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on 08/13/2026.
Applicant’s amendments filed 08/13/2026 have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment of claims 1-2, 11, and 14; and the cancellation of claim 5.
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 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0091355 to Barr et al. (hereinafter Barr) in view of Bouthinon et al. (US 2023/0154957, hereinafter Bouthinon).
With respect to claim 1, Barr discloses a transparent electrode (e.g., transparent multilayer top electrode) (Barr, Figs. 1, 13, ¶0003-¶0010, ¶0054-¶0087, ¶0095) having optical filtering function, the transparent electrode (140) comprising:
a substrate (e.g.,150, seed layer) (Barr, Fig. 1, ¶0057-¶0058); and
a conductive stack (e.g., 160a/170a…160n/170n) disposed on the substrate (150) (Barr, Fig. 1, ¶0057, ¶0059-¶0060), the conductive stack comprising a plurality of metal layers (e.g., 160a…160n, silver (Ag), gold (Au), aluminum (Al), or copper (Cu)) (Barr, Fig. 1, ¶0059) and a plurality of transparent conductive oxide (TCO) layers (e.g., 170a…170n) (Barr, Fig. 1, ¶0057, ¶0060) alternately arranged (Barr, Fig. 1, ¶0057), wherein a sheet resistance (e.g., less than 20 Ohm/sq, less than 10 Ohm/sq, or less than 5 Ohm/ sq) (Barr, Figs. 1, 6, ¶0075, ¶0087) of the conductive stack (140) is less than 35 ohms per square, and an average transmittance (e.g., greater than 50 % in a visible wavelength range of 400-600 nm; note that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range (M.P.E.P. §2131.03)) (Barr, Figs. 1, 7A, ¶0079, ¶0088) at a spectral range from 400 nm to 700 nm of the conductive stack is greater than 50%.
Further, Barr does not specifically disclose that (1) a number of pairs of the metal layers and the TCO layers of the conductive stack is from 10 to 30, and (2) an average optical density at a spectral range from 900 nm to 1100 nm of the conductive stack is greater than 2.
Regarding (1), Barr teaches that the TCO layer (e.g., the interconnect layer 170) (Barr, Figs. 1, 13, ¶0090) sandwiched between the two metal layers (160) forms an optical cavity, and by tuning the thicknesses and the refractive indices of the TCO layer (170) within the cavity, the color and shape of the transmission spectrum is engineered to maximize average visible transmission (AVT), while rejecting wavelengths outside of the resonance condition (e.g., UV and NIR light).
Thus, Barr recognizes that the thicknesses and the refractive indices of the TCO layer and the number of metal layers and the TCO layers forming the optical cavity impact the shape of the transmission spectrum and average visible transmission. Thus, the thicknesses and the refractive indices of the TCO layer and the number of metal layers and the TCO layers forming the optical cavity are result-effective variables.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to vary, through routine optimization, the thicknesses and the refractive indices of the TCO layer and the number of metal layers and the TCO layers forming the optical cavity as Barr has identified the thicknesses and the refractive indices of the TCO layer and the number of metal layers and the TCO layers forming the optical cavity as result-effective variables. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at specific number of metal layers and the TCO layers such that a number of pairs of the metal layers and the TCO layers of the conductive stack is from 10 to 30, in order to provide the desired shape of the transmission spectrum to maximize average visible transmission (AVT), while rejecting wavelengths outside of the resonance condition (e.g., UV and NIR light) as taught by Barr (¶0090) (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transparent electrode of Barr by optimizing the number of metal layers and the TCO layers, and thicknesses and the refractive indices of the TCO layers and metal layers as taught by Barr to have the transparent electrode, wherein a number of pairs of the metal layers and the TCO layers of the conductive stack is from 10 to 30, in order to provide improved transparent multilayer electrode having the desired shape of the transmission spectrum with maximized average visible transmission (AVT) and enhanced active absorption in the NIR and IR wavelengths and low sheet resistance (Barr, ¶0003-¶0008, ¶0053, ¶0090).
Regarding (2), Bouthinon teaches forming an image sensor (Bouthinon, Fig. 3, ¶0006-¶0012, ¶0046-¶0117) for the radiation in the visible range and comprising a filter structure (2) capable blocking the rays of the incident radiation having respective incidences at specific incidence angle (Bouthinon, Fig. 3, ¶0090), to provide a sharp image of the object to be imaged on the sensitive portion of the image sensor, and a material layer between the filter structure (2) and imager (3) formed on a substrate and having infrared filter properties to filter radiation greater than 600 nm, and having a transmittance smaller than 0.1 % corresponding to the optical density of 3 (OD3).
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that forming an infrared filter having specific infrared filter properties on a substrate and adjacent the conductive stack of Barr having a transmittance greater that 50 % in a visible range (e.g., an electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength in the range from 400 nm to 700 nm) would enhance the transmittance property of the transparent electrode in the visible range.
Thus, an infrared filter having specific infrared filter properties is a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to vary, through routine optimization, an infrared filter having specific infrared filter properties as Bouthinon has identified an infrared filter having specific infrared filter properties as a result-effective variable. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at an infrared filter having specific infrared filter properties to have the transparent electrode having an average optical density at a spectral range from 900 nm to 1100 nm of the conductive stack is greater than 2, in order to enhance the transmittance property of the transparent electrode in the visible range, and to provide an improved image sensor having improved sensitivity in the desired wavelength range as taught by Bouthinon (¶0006-¶0012, ¶0046, ¶0117) (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transparent electrode of Barr by forming transparent electrode including an infrared filter having specific infrared filter properties as taught by Bouthinon to have the transparent electrode, wherein an average optical density at a spectral range from 900 nm to 1100 nm of the conductive stack is greater than 2, in order to enhance the transmittance property of the transparent electrode in the visible range, and to provide an improved image sensor having improved sensitivity in the desired wavelength range (Bouthinon, ¶0006-¶0012, ¶0046, ¶0117).
Regarding claim 2, Barr in view of Bouthinon discloses the transparent electrode of claim 1. Further, Barr discloses the transparent electrode, wherein a thickness (e.g., 0.095 mm) of the conductive stack (ITO/Ag/ITO/Ag, stack# 3 in Fig. 13) (Barr, Figs. 1, 13, ¶0095, ¶0100) is less than 1.5 µm.
Regarding claim 3, Barr in view of Bouthinon discloses the transparent electrode of claim 1. Further, Barr discloses the transparent electrode, wherein the conductive stack (140) (Barr r, Fig. 1, ¶0054, ¶0057) has a rectangle cross-section.
Regarding claim 6, Barr in view of Bouthinon discloses the transparent electrode of claim 1. Further, Barr discloses the transparent electrode, wherein a material (e.g., silver (Ag), gold (Au), aluminum (Al), or copper (Cu)) (Barr, Fig. 1, ¶0059, ¶0074) of the metal layers (160…160n) is selected from a group consisting of Ag, Au, Cu, Fe, Al, Pt, Ni, and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 7, Barr in view of Bouthinon discloses the transparent electrode of claim 1. Further, Barr discloses the transparent electrode, wherein a material (e.g., zinc aluminum oxide (AZO), indium-tin-oxide (ITO), indium zinc oxide (IZO)) (Barr, Fig. 1, ¶0060, ¶0080) of the TCO layers (e.g., 170a…170n) is selected from a group consisting of In2O3, In2O3-ZnO, AZO, GZO, ITO, IZO, IWO, MZO, ATO, FTO, IGTO, SnO2, TNO, TiN, Cu2O, Ta2Ox, GaInOx, InGaZnO, ZnxSnOy, ZnGaxOy, GaInOx, ZnxInyOz, VOx, and MoOx.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0091355 to Barr in view of Bouthinon (US 2023/0154957) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Viens et al. (US 2006/0091284, hereinafter Viens).
Regarding claim 4, Barr in view of Bouthinon discloses the transparent electrode of claim 1. Further, Barr does not specifically disclose the transparent electrode, wherein the conductive stack has a trapezoid cross-section, and an angle between a sidewall of the conductive stack and a top surface of the substrate is less than 40 degrees.
However, Viens teaches forming detection pixel (Viens, Fig. 1, ¶0003-¶0008, ¶0042) having rectangular, square, or trapezoidal surface shape to provide sufficient sidewall surface space to deposit connection lines, an to detect light from 0.2 mm (200 nm) to about 12 mm, and the size of the pixel is larger than a wavelength of light incident of the pixel in order to avoid optical scattering at pixel sidewalls (Viens, Fig. 1, ¶0042).
Thus, Viens recognizes that the size and the shape of the detection pixel impact optical scattering at pixel sidewalls. Thus, the size and the shape of the detection pixel including the transparent electrode are result-effective variables.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to vary, through routine optimization, the size and the shape of the detection pixel including the transparent electrode as Viens has identified the size and the shape of the detection pixel including the transparent electrode as result-effective variables. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at specific size and shape of the detection pixel including the transparent electrode such that the conductive stack has a trapezoid cross-section, and an angle between a sidewall of the conductive stack and a top surface of the substrate is less than 40 degrees, in order to avoid optical scattering at pixel sidewalls as taught by Viens (¶0042) (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transparent electrode of Barr/Bouthinon by optimizing the size and the shape of the detection pixel including the transparent electrode as taught by Viens to have the transparent electrode, wherein the conductive stack has a trapezoid cross-section, and an angle between a sidewall of the conductive stack and a top surface of the substrate is less than 40 degrees, in order to avoid optical scattering at pixel sidewalls, and to provide improved detection pixel allowing detection at various frequences (Viens, ¶0005-¶0006, ¶0042).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0091355 to Barr in view of Bouthinon (US 2023/0154957) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of den Boer (US 2008/0223436).
Regarding claim 8, Barr in view of Bouthinon discloses the transparent electrode of claim 1. Further, Barr does not specifically disclose that a refractive index of the TCO layers is greater than 1.6, and an extinction coefficient of the TCO layers is less than 0.1, at a spectral range from 400 nm to 700 nm.
However, den Boer teaches forming the transparent electrode (den Boer, Figs. 1, 7, ¶0008, ¶0030-¶0032), wherein a refractive index (e.g., n is about 2 at 600 nm, and greater than 1. 6 in the range from 400 nm to 700 nm) of the TCO layers (den Boer, Figs. 1, 6, ¶0042) is greater than 1.6, and an extinction coefficient (e.g., k is less than 0.01 in the range from 400 nm to 700 nm) of the TCO layers (den Boer, Figs. 1, 7, ¶0042) is less than 0.1, at a spectral range from 400 nm to 700 nm, to provide multilayer transparent electrode with increased conductivity to increase overall device output power by reducing resistive losses, reduced visible light reflection, and increased IR reflection capability (den Boer, ¶0008, ¶0031).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transparent electrode of Barr/Bouthinon by forming top transparent electrode including TCOs layers as taught by deb Boer to have the transparent electrode, wherein a refractive index of the TCO layers is greater than 1.6, and an extinction coefficient of the TCO layers is less than 0.1, at a spectral range from 400 nm to 700 nm, in order to provide multilayer transparent electrode with increased conductivity to increase overall device output power by reducing resistive losses, reduced visible light reflection, and increased IR reflection capability (den Boer, ¶0008, ¶0031).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0091355 to Barr n view of Bouthinon (US 2023/0154957) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Joei (US 2015/0311259).
Regarding claim 9, Barr in view of Bouthinon discloses the transparent electrode of claim 1. Further, Barr discloses the transparent electrode, further comprising a cap dielectric (e.g., 190, function as a protection layer) (Barr, Fig. 1, ¶0061, ¶0083-¶0084) covering a top surface, but does not specifically disclose a cap dielectric covering sidewalls of the conductive stack, wherein a thickness of the cap dielectric is greater than 200 nm.
However, Joei teaches forming an image sensing device (Joei, Fig. 1, ¶0006, ¶0042-¶0067) comprising photoelectric conversion structure (14/16/17) (Joei, Fig. 1, ¶0043) including a transparent top electrode (17) (Joei, Fig. 1, ¶0066) covered with a protection layer (18) having an optical transparency and a thickness between 100 nm and 300 nm (Joei, Fig. 1, ¶0067). The claimed range overlaps the range of Joei.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (M.P.E.P. §2144.05).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transparent electrode of Barr/Bouthinon by forming a protection layer covering the top electrode as taught by Jooei to have the transparent electrode, further comprising a cap dielectric covering sidewalls of the conductive stack, wherein a thickness of the cap dielectric is greater than 200 nm, in order to provide an improved image sensor having higher photoelectric conversion efficiency (Joei, ¶0006, ¶0043, ¶0067).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0091355 to Barr in view of Bouthinon (US 2023/0154957) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0175286, hereinafter Park) and Joei (US 2015/0311259).
Regarding claim 10, Barr in view of Bouthinon discloses the transparent electrode of claim 1. Further, Barr discloses the transparent electrode, further comprising: a first dielectric layer (e.g., 190, function as a protection layer) (Barr, Fig. 1, ¶0061, ¶0083-¶0084) on the conductive stack, but does not specifically disclose an additional conductive stack on the first dielectric layer; a second dielectric layer on the additional conductive stack; and a metallic via penetrating the conductive stack, the first dielectric layer, the additional conductive stack, and the second dielectric layer.
However, Park teaches forming an image sensing device (Park, Fig. 9, ¶0004, ¶0094-¶0100) comprising stacked photoelectric conversion structures (120C1/132C1/134C1, 120C2/132C2/134C2, and 120C3/132C3/134C3) (Park, Fig. 9, ¶0097), wherein an additional conductive stack (e.g., 120C2/132C2/134C2 and 120C3/132C3/134C3) is formed on the first dielectric layer (136); a second dielectric layer (136) on the additional conductive stack, to provide image sensor with improved sensitivity.
Further, Joei teaches forming an image sensor (Joei, Fig. 1, ¶0042-¶0067), wherein a metallic via (120b1, 120b2, and 120b3) (Joei, Fig. 1, ¶0065) penetrates the first stack including first conversion structure (11B/11R), the first dielectric layer (12), the additional conductive stack (16), and the second dielectric layer (18).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transparent electrode of Barr/Bouthinon by forming stacked photoelectric conversion structures as taught by Park, wherein the conductive plug penetrates the stacked structures as taught by Jooei to have the transparent electrode, further comprising: an additional conductive stack on the first dielectric layer; a second dielectric layer on the additional conductive stack; and a metallic via penetrating the conductive stack, the first dielectric layer, the additional conductive stack, and the second dielectric layer, in order to provide an improved image sensor with improved sensitivity, and having higher photoelectric conversion efficiency (Park, ¶0004, ¶0094-¶0100; Joei, ¶0006, ¶0043, ¶0067).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0091355 to Barr in view of Bouthinon (US 2023/0154957) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Dierickx et al. (US 2016/0307947, hereinafter Dierickx).
Regarding claim 11, Barr in view of Bouthinon discloses the transparent electrode of claim 1. Further, Barr does not specifically disclose the transparent electrode, wherein a signal to noise (S/N) ratio of the transparent electrode is greater than 600, at a spectral range from 400 nm to 1000 nm.
However, Dierickx teaches that noise performance (Dierickx, ¶0114-¶0118) of a pixel depends on the operation mode of the pixel. The signal to noise ratio is increasing when decreasing the gain. Depending on the light intensity, a different operating mode can be selected and combined in order to obtain a high dynamic range. Specifically, at higher light strength, the photon shot noise is dominating. The signal to noise ratio (considering the photon shot noise) in case both signal and noise are taken at the same illumination level is equal to 650:1 (Dierickx, ¶0117).
Thus, Dierickx recognizes that the operation mode and the gain impact noise performance. Thus, the operation mode and the gain are result-effective variables.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to vary, through routine optimization, the operation mode and the gain as Dierickx has identified the operation mode and the gain as result-effective variables. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at specific a signal to noise (S/N) ratio such that a signal to noise (S/N) ratio of the transparent electrode is greater than 600, at a spectral range from 400 nm to 1000 nm, in order to obtain pixels with high dynamic range without increasing the pixel size as taught by Dierickx (¶0005, ¶0114, ¶0118) (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transparent electrode of Barr/Bouthinon by optimizing operation mode and gain as taught by Dierickx to have the transparent electrode, wherein a signal to noise (S/N) ratio of the transparent electrode is greater than 600, at a spectral range from 400 nm to 1000 nm, in order to obtain pixels with high dynamic range without increasing the pixel size (Dierickx, ¶0005, ¶0114, ¶0118).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0091355 to Barr in view of Bouthinon (US 2023/0154957) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2018/0374650, hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 12, Barr in view of Bouthinon discloses the transparent electrode of claim 1. Further, Barr does not specifically disclose the transparent electrode, wherein a response time of the transparent electrode is greater than 104 Hz, at an applied voltage of 4V.
However, Huang teaches forming photodetector (Huang, Figs. 2A, 11, ¶0005-¶0006, ¶0033-¶0035, ¶0051-¶0053) comprising perovskite active layer (20) and transparent electrode (25) for suppressed background noise emission application (Huang, Figs. 2A, 11, ¶0052-¶0053), wherein applied bias assists with photocurrent conduction. The device response time (Huang, Figs. 2A, 11, ¶0052) depends on crystal thickness, electron mobility, and applied bias. Specifically, 4V bias is applied to the transparent electrode of the photodetector having crystal thickness of 0.9 mm to have the device response of -3dB at 1600 Hz, and it possible to increase the device response speed to even above MHz (106 Hz) by using crystals with larger carrier mobility and smaller thickness.
Thus, Huang recognizes that crystal thickness, electron mobility, and applied bias impact the device response time. Thus, crystal thickness, electron mobility, and applied bias are result-effective variables.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to vary, through routine optimization, crystal thickness, electron mobility, and applied bias as Huang has identified crystal thickness, electron mobility, and applied bias as result-effective variables. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at specific device response time such that a response time of the transparent electrode is greater than 104 Hz, at an applied voltage of 4V, in order to obtain improved photodetector for suppressed background noise emission application as taught by Huang (¶0005, ¶0052-¶0053) (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transparent electrode of Barr/Bouthinon by optimizing crystal thickness, electron mobility, and applied bias of perovskite photodetector as taught by Huang to have the transparent electrode, wherein a response time of the transparent electrode is greater than 104 Hz, at an applied voltage of 4V, in order to obtain improved photodetector for suppressed background noise emission application (Huang, ¶0005-¶0006, ¶0033, ¶0051-¶0053).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0091355 to Barr in view of Bouthinon (US 2023/0154957) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wang et al. (US Patent No. 12,464,937, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 13, Barr in view of Bouthinon discloses the transparent electrode of claim 1. Further, Barr does not specifically disclose the transparent electrode, wherein an ON/OFF ratio of the transparent electrode is greater than 104, at an applied voltage of 0.1V.
However, Wang teaches forming photodetector (Wang, Figs. 21A, 21C, Col. 1, lines 24-27, Col. 38, lines 42-54; Col. 39, lines 1-16) comprising perovskite active layer and upper electrode (e.g., AgNWs), wherein small or even zero bias is sufficient to extract the photocurrent in the photoactive layer. The device exhibits (Wang, Figs. 21A, 21C, Col. 39, lines 3-8) a low dark current and a high photocurrent, yielding PD on/off ratio of 1.1x104 at -0.5 V bias.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transparent electrode of Barr/Bouthinon by forming perovskite photodetector including upper electrode as taught by Wang, wherein the upper electrode is a transparent electrode to have the transparent electrode, wherein an ON/OFF ratio of the transparent electrode is greater than 104, at an applied voltage of 0.1V, in order to obtain improved photodetector capable of extracting high photocurrent in the photoactive layer at small or even zero bias (Wang, Col. 1, lines 24-27, Col. 39, lines 3-8).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0175286 to Park in view of Barr (US 2020/0091355), Joei (US 2015/0311259), and Bouthinon (US 2023/0154957).
With respect to claim 14, Park discloses an image sensor (Park, Figs. 3-4, ¶0004, ¶0025-¶0100) comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (110) (Park, Figs. 3-4, ¶0029-¶0030);
a read-out circuit (e.g., transistors constituting read-out circuit) (Park, Figs. 3-4, ¶0054) in the semiconductor substrate (110);
a bottom electrode (120) (Park, Figs. 3-4, ¶0032-¶0033) disposed on a surface (110F2) of the semiconductor substrate (110);
a photoactive layer (132) (Park, Figs. 3-4, ¶0037-¶0041) disposed on the bottom electrode (120);
a transparent electrode (134) (Park, Figs. 3-4, ¶0042-¶0043) disposed on the photoactive layer (132).
Further, Park does not specifically disclose (1) the transparent electrode comprising: a substrate; and conductive stack disposed on the substrate, the conductive stack comprising a plurality of metal layers and a plurality of transparent conductive oxide (TCO) layers alternately arranged, wherein a sheet resistance of the conductive stack is less than 35 ohms per square, and an average transmittance at a spectral range from 400 nm to 700 nm of the conductive stack is greater than 50%; and (2) a contact connecting the transparent electrode to the bottom electrode; (3) a number of pairs of the metal layers and the TCO layers of the conductive stack is from 10 to 30, and (4) an average optical density at a spectral range from 900 nm to 1100 nm of the conductive stack is greater than 2.
Regarding (1), Barr teaches forming a transparent electrode (e.g., transparent multilayer top electrode) (Barr, Figs. 1, 13, ¶0003-¶0010, ¶0054-¶0087, ¶0095) comprising: a substrate (e.g.,150, seed layer) (Barr, Fig. 1, ¶0057-¶0058); and a conductive stack (e.g., 160a/170a …160n/170n) disposed on the substrate (150) (Barr, Fig. 1, ¶0057, ¶0059-¶0060), the conductive stack comprising a plurality of metal layers (e.g., 160a…160n, silver (Ag), gold (Au), aluminum (Al), or copper (Cu)) (Barr, Fig. 1, ¶0059) and a plurality of transparent conductive oxide (TCO) layers (e.g., 170a…170n) (Barr, Fig. 1, ¶0057, ¶0060) alternately arranged (Barr, Fig. 1, ¶0057), wherein a sheet resistance (e.g., less than 20 Ohm/sq, less than 10 Ohm/sq, or less than 5 Ohm/ sq) (Barr, Figs. 1, 6, ¶0075, ¶0087) of the conductive stack (140) is less than 35 ohms per square, and an average transmittance (e.g., greater than 50 % in a visible wavelength range of 400-600 nm) (Barr, Figs. 1, 7A, ¶0079, ¶0088) at a spectral range from 400 nm to 700 nm of the conductive stack is greater than 50%.
Note that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range (M.P.E.P. §2131.03).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the image sensor of Park by forming a transparent electrode as taught by Barr to have the transparent electrode comprising: a substrate; and conductive stack disposed on the substrate, the conductive stack comprising a plurality of metal layers and a plurality of transparent conductive oxide (TCO) layers alternately arranged, wherein a sheet resistance of the conductive stack is less than 35 ohms per square, and an average transmittance at a spectral range from 400 nm to 700 nm of the conductive stack is greater than 50%, in order to provide improved transparent multilayer electrode having the desired shape of the transmission spectrum with maximized average visible transmission (AVT) and enhanced active absorption in the NIR and IR wavelengths and low sheet resistance (Barr, ¶0003-¶0008, ¶0053, ¶0090).
Regarding (2), Joei teaches forming an image sensor (Joei, Fig. 1, ¶0042-¶0067), wherein a metallic via (120b1, 120b2, and 120b3) (Joei, Fig. 1, ¶0065) penetrates the stack including the conversion structure (16), and connecting the transparent electrode (17) to the bottom electrode (14).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the image sensor of Park by forming contact connecting the upper electrode of the photoelectric conversion structure to the bottom electrode as taught by Jooei to have the image sensor comprising, a contact connecting the transparent electrode to the bottom electrode, in order to provide an improved image sensor with improved sensitivity, and having higher photoelectric conversion efficiency (Joei, ¶0006, ¶0043, ¶0067).
Regarding (3), Barr teaches that the TCO layer (e.g., the interconnect layer 170) (Barr, Figs. 1, 13, ¶0090) sandwiched between the two metal layers (160) forms an optical cavity, and by tuning the thicknesses and the refractive indices of the TCO layer (170) within the cavity, the color and shape of the transmission spectrum is engineered to maximize average visible transmission (AVT), while rejecting wavelengths outside of the resonance condition (e.g., UV and NIR light).
Thus, Barr recognizes that the thicknesses and the refractive indices of the TCO layer and the number of metal layers and the TCO layers forming the optical cavity impact the shape of the transmission spectrum and average visible transmission. Thus, the thicknesses and the refractive indices of the TCO layer and the number of metal layers and the TCO layers forming the optical cavity are result-effective variables.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to vary, through routine optimization, the thicknesses and the refractive indices of the TCO layer and the number of metal layers and the TCO layers forming the optical cavity as Barr has identified the thicknesses and the refractive indices of the TCO layer and the number of metal layers and the TCO layers forming the optical cavity as result-effective variables. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at specific number of metal layers and the TCO layers such that a number of pairs of the metal layers and the TCO layers of the conductive stack is from 10 to 30, in order to provide the desired shape of the transmission spectrum to maximize average visible transmission (AVT), while rejecting wavelengths outside of the resonance condition (e.g., UV and NIR light) as taught by Barr (¶0090) (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transparent electrode of Park by optimizing the number of metal layers and the TCO layers, and thicknesses and the refractive indices of the TCO layers and metal layers as taught by Barr to have the transparent electrode, wherein a number of pairs of the metal layers and the TCO layers of the conductive stack is from 10 to 30, in order to provide improved transparent multilayer electrode having the desired shape of the transmission spectrum with maximized average visible transmission (AVT) and enhanced active absorption in the NIR and IR wavelengths and low sheet resistance (Barr, ¶0003-¶0008, ¶0053, ¶0090).
Regarding (4), Bouthinon teaches forming an image sensor (Bouthinon, Fig. 3, ¶0006-¶0012, ¶0046-¶0117) for the radiation in the visible range and comprising a filter structure (2) capable blocking the rays of the incident radiation having respective incidences at specific incidence angle (Bouthinon, Fig. 3, ¶0090), to provide a sharp image of the object to be imaged on the sensitive portion of the image sensor, and a material layer between the filter structure (2) and imager (3) formed on a substrate and having infrared filter properties to filter radiation greater than 600 nm, and having a transmittance smaller than 0.1 % corresponding to the optical density of 3 (OD3).
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that forming an infrared filter having specific infrared filter properties on a substrate and adjacent the conductive stack of Barr having a transmittance greater that 50 % in a visible range (e.g., an electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength in the range from 400 nm to 700 nm) would enhance the transmittance property of the transparent electrode in the visible range.
Thus, an infrared filter having specific infrared filter properties is a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to vary, through routine optimization, an infrared filter having specific infrared filter properties as Bouthinon has identified an infrared filter having specific infrared filter properties as a result-effective variable. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at an infrared filter having specific infrared filter properties to have the transparent electrode having an average optical density at a spectral range from 900 nm to 1100 nm of the conductive stack is greater than 2, in order to enhance the transmittance property of the transparent electrode in the visible range, and to provide an improved image sensor having improved sensitivity in the desired wavelength range as taught by Bouthinon (¶0006-¶0012, ¶0046, ¶0117) (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transparent electrode of Park by forming transparent electrode including an infrared filter having specific infrared filter properties as taught by Bouthinon to have the transparent electrode, wherein an average optical density at a spectral range from 900 nm to 1100 nm of the conductive stack is greater than 2, in order to enhance the transmittance property of the transparent electrode in the visible range, and to provide an improved image sensor having improved sensitivity in the desired wavelength range (Bouthinon, ¶0006-¶0012, ¶0046, ¶0117).
Regarding claim 15, Park in view of Barr, Joei, and Bouthinon discloses the image sensor of claim 14. Further, Park discloses the image sensor, wherein the photoactive layer (132) (Park, Figs. 3-4, ¶0037-¶0041) comprises an organic layer.
Regarding claim 16, Park in view of Barr, Joei, and Bouthinon discloses the image sensor of claim 14. Further, Park discloses the image sensor, further comprising: a micro lens layer (144) (Park, Figs. 3-4, ¶0047) on the transparent electrode (134); a color filter layer (140) (Park, Figs. 3-4, ¶0045) disposed between the micro lens layer (144) and the transparent electrode (134); and a spacing layer (136) (Park, Figs. 3-4, ¶0044) disposed between the color filter layer (140) and the transparent electrode (134).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument that “Barr does not disclose the number of pairs of the metal layers and the TCO layers as claimed” and “Barr does not disclose the average optical density at a spectral range from 900 nm to 1100 nm of the conductive stack is greater than 2”, the examiner submit that Barr recognizes that the thicknesses and the refractive indices of the TCO layer and the number of metal layers and the TCO layers forming the optical cavity impact the shape of the transmission spectrum and average visible transmission. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to vary, through routine optimization, the thicknesses and the refractive indices of the TCO layer and the number of metal layers and the TCO layers forming the optical cavity to arrive at specific number of metal layers and the TCO layers such that a number of pairs of the metal layers and the TCO layers of the conductive stack is from 10 to 30, in order to provide the desired shape of the transmission spectrum to maximize average visible transmission (AVT), while rejecting wavelengths outside of the resonance condition (e.g., UV and NIR light) as taught by Barr.
Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that forming an infrared filter having specific infrared filter properties (as taught by of Bouthinon) on a substrate and adjacent the conductive stack of Barr having a transmittance greater that 50 % in a visible range (e.g., an electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength in the range from 400 nm to 700 nm) would enhance the transmittance property of the transparent electrode in the visible range. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to vary, through routine optimization, an infrared filter to arrive at the infrared filter having specific infrared filter properties to have the transparent electrode having an average optical density at a spectral range from 900 nm to 1100 nm of the conductive stack is greater than 2, in order to enhance the transmittance property of the transparent electrode in the visible range, and to provide an improved image sensor having improved sensitivity in the desired wavelength range as taught by Bouthinon (¶0006-¶0012, ¶0046, ¶0117) (MPEP 2144.05).
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed average optical density (at a spectral range from 900 nm to 1100 nm of the conductive stack is greater than 2) is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed value of average optical density).
Thus, the above Applicant's arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 over Barr in view of Bouthinon is maintained.
Regarding the independent claim 14, the examiner respectfully submits that the applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claim 14 are not persuasive for the above reasons, and thus the rejection of claim 14 under 35 USC 103 over Park in view of Barr, Joei, and Bouthinon is maintained.
Regarding dependent claims 2-4, 6-13, and 15-16 which depend on the independent claims 1 and 14, the examiner respectfully submits that the applicant’s arguments with respect to dependent claims are not persuasive for the above reasons, thus, the rejections of the dependent claims are sustained.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 NATALIA GONDARENKO whose telephone number is (571)272-2284. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM-7:30 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, 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.
/NATALIA A GONDARENKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
