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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/29/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 17-20 in the reply filed on 04/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “[a]ll features recited in claim 17 are similar and corresponding to the features recited in claim 1. It appears that the Office Action may have advanced the election requirement merely because the claim set includes apparatus claims and method claims. In this regard, no discussion was provided in the Office Action as to the purported "mutually exclusive" characteristics…The subject matters of claims 1-16 and claims 17-20 constitute a single invention concept and therefore are not patentably distinct. It is respectfully submitted that it should be no undue burden on the Examiner to consider all claims in the single application”. This is not found persuasive because restriction is the practice of requiring an applicant to elect a single claimed invention (e.g., a combination or subcombination invention, a product or process invention, a species within a genus) for examination when two or more independent inventions and/or two or more distinct inventions are claimed in an application (see MPEP 802.02). Further, in application where two or more species are claimed, a requirement for restriction to a single species may be proper if the species are mutually exclusive ((see MPEP 806.04(f)). Claims 1-16 and claims 17-20 are not appropriate to “species within a genus” restriction, and thus discussion to "mutually exclusive" characteristics are not relevant to the restriction requirement of the Office Action of 03/10/2026.
This application contains distinct inventions including claims 1-16, drawn to a product, and claims 17-20, drawn to a process:
Group I. Claims 1-16, drawn to a product, a transparent electrode/image sensor,
classified in class: H10K39/32; H10K30/82;
H10F39/18, 8053, 8063, 12, 182, 8057, 1515, 806, 192;
Group II. Claims 17-20, drawn to a process, a method of forming a transparent
electrode, classified in class: H10P14/24, 44, 6339;
H10K71/60; H10F39/011.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions of Group II and Group I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product of Group I invention as claimed can be made by another and materially different process from that of Group II invention, namely one in which sputtering depositing a metal layer on a substrate is not required, and a metal layer (a plurality of metal layers) can be formed by a different process (e.g., atomic layer deposition (ALD) or chemical vapor deposition (CVD)).
Although, the search of the subject matter of the claims of Group I would overlap with a search of the subject matter of the claims of Group II, the invention of Group II has separate classification, e.g., H10P14/24, 44, 6339; H10K71/60. In the instant case, separate classification is evidence of serious burden because a method of forming a transparent electrode by a specific process including sputtering is recognized separately in the art and requires a separate field of search. Further, the search of the subject matter of the claims of Group II would require searching different main groups/sub-groups and employing different search queries (even though the searches of the subject matter of the claims of Group I would overlap with searches of the subject matter of the claims of Group II).
Thus, Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed above are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “a S/N ratio” which should be replaced with “a signal to noise (S/N) ratio”.
Claim 14 recites “a transparent electrode disposed on the photoactive layer the transparent electrode comprising:” which should be replaced with “a transparent electrode disposed on the photoactive layer, the transparent electrode comprising:”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2008/0223436 to den Boer et al. (hereinafter den Boer).
With respect to claim 1, den Boer discloses a transparent electrode (e.g., multilayer front electrode) (den Boer, Fig. 1, ¶0022-¶0038) having optical filtering function, the transparent electrode (3) comprising:
a substrate (e.g., 3f, buffer layer) (den Boer, Fig. 1, ¶0030-¶0032); and
a conductive stack (e.g., 3e/3d/3c/3b/3a) disposed on the substrate (3f) (den Boer, Fig. 1, ¶0030), the conductive stack comprising a plurality of metal layers (e.g., 3d and 3b, silver (Ag)) (den Boer, Fig. 1, ¶0031) and a plurality of transparent conductive oxide (TCO) layers (e.g., 3e, 3c, and 3a) (den Boer, Fig. 1, ¶0032) alternately arranged (den Boer, Fig. 1, ¶0034), wherein a sheet resistance (e.g., less than about 12 ohms/square, less than about 9 ohms/square, or less than about 6 ohms/ square) (den Boer, Fig. 1, ¶0031) of the conductive stack is less than 35 ohms per square, and an average transmittance (e.g., about 80 % in a wavelength range of 450-600 nm) (den Boer, Fig. 1, page 6, claim 18) 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)
Regarding claim 3, den Boer discloses the transparent electrode of claim 1. Further, den Boer discloses the transparent electrode, wherein the conductive stack (3, stripe patterns have a rectangle cross-section) (den Boer, Fig. 1, ¶0030) has a rectangle cross-section.
Regarding claim 6, den Boer discloses the transparent electrode of claim 1. Further, den Boer discloses the transparent electrode, wherein a material of the metal layers (e.g., 3d and 3b, silver (Ag) or gold (Au)) (den Boer, Fig. 1, ¶0031) is selected from a group consisting of Ag, Au, Cu, Fe, Al, Pt, Ni, and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 7, den Boer discloses the transparent electrode of claim 1. Further, den Boer discloses the transparent electrode, wherein a material (e.g., zinc aluminum oxide (AZO), indium-tin-oxide (ITO), indium zinc oxide (IZO)) of the TCO layers (e.g., 3e, 3c, and 3a) (den Boer, Fig. 1, ¶0032) 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.
Regarding claim 8, den Boer discloses the transparent electrode of claim 1. Further, den Boer discloses the transparent electrode, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0091355 to Barr et al. (hereinafter Barr).
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) (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)
Regarding claim 3, Barr 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 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 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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0091355 to Barr.
Regarding claim 2, Barr 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, but does not specifically disclose that a number of pairs of the metal layers and the TCO layers of the conductive stack is from 10 to 30.
However, 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).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0091355 to Barr in view of Viens et al. (US 2006/0091284, hereinafter Viens).
Regarding claim 4, Barr 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 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0091355 to Barr in view of Bouthinon et al. (US 2023/0154957, hereinafter Bouthinon).
Regarding claim 5, Barr discloses the transparent electrode of claim 1. Further, Barr does not specifically disclose 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.
However, Bouthinon teaches forming an image sensor (Bouthinon, Fig. 3, ¶0006-¶0012, ¶0046-¶0117) comprising a material layer 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).
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 a material layer having infrared filter properties as taught by Viens 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 provide an improved image sensor having improved sensitivity in the desired wavelength range (Bouthinon, ¶0006-¶0012, ¶0046, ¶0117).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0091355 to Barr in view of den Boer (US 2008/0223436).
Regarding claim 8, Barr 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 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 in view of Joei (US 2015/0311259).
Regarding claim 9, Barr 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 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 Park et al. (US 2021/0175286, hereinafter Park) and Joei (US 2015/0311259).
Regarding claim 10, Barr 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 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 Dierickx et al. (US 2016/0307947, hereinafter Dierickx).
Regarding claim 11, Barr discloses the transparent electrode of claim 1. Further, Barr does not specifically disclose the transparent electrode, wherein a 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 signal to noise ratio (S/N) such that a 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 by optimizing operation mode and gain as taught by Dierickx to have the transparent electrode, wherein a 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 Huang et al. (US 2018/0374650, hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 12, Barr 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 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 Wang et al. (US Patent No. 12,464,937, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 13, Barr 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 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) and Joei (US 2015/0311259).
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.
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 claim 15, Park in view of Barr and Joei 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 and Joei 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).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights