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
Applicant's election with traverse of Device Embodiment 1 in the reply filed on 04/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Requirement for Restriction dated 03/24/2026 states: “[t]he two embodiments are exclusive as a photomultiplier cannot have only two layers or only three layers in the same embodiment”; and “[c]urrently, no claims are generic.” Applicant states that there are no claims that recite having only one layer and that term comprising used in Claim 15 is open ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited components or method steps. This is not found persuasive because the restriction was made on a device embodiment having two layers with a defined set of materials and a device embodiment having three layers with a defined set of materials. Examiner agrees with Applicant’s recitation of the definition of the term comprising. Examiner also agrees that there are no claims reciting only one anti-reflective layer and does not see where restricting that claim was made in the Requirement for Restriction. Further, Examiner agrees with Applicant’s argument that Claim 15 is generic but Examiner fails to understand where the device of Claim 15 was identified as a third embodiment. However, the embodiments as shown in the figures and specification of the instant application disclose an embodiment with two anti-reflective layers, of a certain material set (disclosed in the specification, Para [59]), on a substrate and an embodiment with three anti-reflective layers, of a certain material set (disclosed in the specification, Para [60]), on a substrate. Upon further reflection, Examiner does not see the proposed error to the restriction and Examiner still contends, as noted in the Requirement for Restriction, an embodiment with two anti-reflective layers, with a given set of materials, has exclusionary features from an embodiment with three anti-reflective layers, with a second set of materials.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner notes that the Applicant’s Restriction Election does not fully conform as it does not recite the claims applicable to the elected Device Embodiment I. Examiner notes that claim 7 has been withdrawn and claim 10 has been cancelled. Upon further reflection, Examiner notes that Claims 1-3,6,8-9,11,13 and 15-18 read on the Device Embodiment I having two anti-reflective materials of a given material set. Claims 4-5,12,14 and 19-20 read on Device Embodiment II having three anti-reflective materials of a given material set. Therefore claims 4-5,12,14 and 19-20 are withdrawn as reading on an unelected Device Embodiment II. Remaining Claims 1-3,6,8-9,11,13 and 15-18 will be examined as reading on elected Device Embodiment I.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner notes a typographical error in the term “refractive dices” in Para [59] of the Specification, Page 10. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets “refractive dices” as “refractive indices”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner notices a typographical error in the second formula
PNG
media_image1.png
50
82
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in Claim 3. For purposes of examination Examiner is interpreting n1 as n2, the denominator of the d2 thickness equation as 4n2 and that d2 refers to the thickness of the second anti-reflective layer: Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for anti-reflective layers of MgF2 and ZnS in Para [59] of the specification of the instant application, does not reasonably provide enablement for the multitude of other elements that could possibly meet the formulas cited in the claim. The specification of the instant application only enables a certain set of materials (the two materials MgF2 and ZnS) that meet the refractive index formulas cited in claim 2. As written, the claim covers a multitude of other elements that meet the formula and these every other possible materials are not supported in the specification. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The specification is not enabling every single material that may meet the refractive index that meets the formulas cited in Claim 2. Claim 2 recites a formula to calculate the refractive index of a material used as the first and second anti-reflective layers of Claim 1. Many materials could be applied to and meet this formula as the formula applies to any material with a refractive index. However the specification, in discussing these formulas in Para [59] supports only the selection of MgF2 and ZnS. Therefore examiner does not see where or how the specification enables these other possibilities.
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 1-2, 6, 8-9, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (US 2014/0299187 A1, hereinafter Chang ‘187).
With respect to Claim 1 Chang ‘187 discloses (Fig 8) a back-illuminated photomultiplier comprising:
a silicon substrate (10/20b, Fig 8, Para [0036 and 0098]) having a top surface (top of 10/20b as shown in Fig 8);
a first anti-reflective layer (21, Fig 8, Para [0053]) disposed on the top surface (top of 10/20b as shown in Fig 8) of the silicon substrate (10/20b); and
a second anti-reflective layer (22, Fig 8, Para [0054]) disposed on a top surface (top of 10/20b as shown in Fig 8) of the first anti-reflective layer (21).
With respect to Claim 2 Chang ‘187 discloses all limitations of the back-illuminated photomultiplier of claim 1, and Chang ‘187 further discloses wherein:
the refractive index (n1) of one of the first anti-reflective layer (21, MgF2, Para [0053]) or the second anti-reflective layer is:
PNG
media_image2.png
50
130
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the refractive index (n2) of the other of the first anti-reflective layer or second anti-reflective layer (22, ZnS, Para [0054]) is:
PNG
media_image3.png
64
137
media_image3.png
Greyscale
n0 is the refractive index of a medium (air (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that solar cells are used outdoors, therefore surrounded by air)) in proximity to the top surface (top of 10/20b as shown in Fig 8) of the silicon substrate (10/20b); and
ns is the refractive index of the silicon substrate (10/20b, silicon, Para [0036 and 0098]). Examiner notes that these, (21, MgF2), (22, ZnS) and (10/20b, silicon) are the same materials of the first anti-reflective layer, the second anti-reflective layer and the silicon substrate cited in the specification (Para [44, 54 and 59]) of the instant application.
Since structures recited in the prior art reference are substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed propertied are presumed to be inherent. Therefore it is presumed that the claim properties of the refractive indices are present. (MPEP § 2112.01 (I)).
With respect to Claim 6 Chang ‘187 discloses all limitations of the back-illuminated photomultiplier of claim 1, and Chang ‘187 further discloses wherein:
one of the first anti-reflective layer (21) or the second anti-reflective layer comprises MgF2 (21 as MgF2 is disclosed in Para [0053]); and
the other of the first anti-reflective layer or the second anti-reflective layer (22 as ZnS is disclosed in Para [0054]) comprises ZnS.
With respect to Claim 8 Chang ‘187 discloses all limitations of the back-illuminated photomultiplier of claim 1, and Chang ‘187 further discloses wherein the top surface (top of 10/20b as shown in Fig 8) of the silicon substrate (10/20b) comprises a plurality of protrusions extending upwards from the top surface (top of 10/20b as shown in Fig 8) (Fig 8 and Para [0044] discloses protrusions extending upwards from top surface of substrate).
With respect to Claim 9 Chang ‘187 discloses all limitations of the back-illuminated photomultiplier of claim 8, and Chang ‘187 further discloses wherein at least one of:
the plurality of protrusions are pyramid-shaped (Para [0044] discloses protrusions as pyramidal shape); or
the plurality of protrusions have non-uniform sizes.
With respect to Claim 15 Chang ‘187 discloses (Fig 8) a back-illuminated photomultiplier comprising:
a silicon substrate 10/20b, Fig 8, Para [0036 and 0098]) having a top surface (top of 10/20b as shown in Fig 8) comprising a plurality of non-uniform protrusions (Para [0044] discloses non-uniform protrusions (irregularities)); and
a first anti-reflective layer (21, Fig 8, Para [0053]) disposed on the top surface (top of 10/20b as shown in Fig 8) of the silicon substrate (10/20b).
With respect to Claim 17 Chang ‘187 discloses all limitations of the back-illuminated photomultiplier of claim 15 further comprising:
a second anti-reflective layer (22, Fig 8, Para [0054]) disposed on a top surface (top of 10/20b as shown in Fig 8) of the first anti-reflective layer (21).
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haaland et al. (US 5,991,081, hereinafter Haaland ‘081) in view of Chang ‘187.
With respect to Claim 1 Haaland ‘081 discloses (Fig 1-14) a back-illuminated photomultiplier (photomultiplier disclosed in Fig 9, Col. 8, Lines 61-67 and Col. 9, Line 1) comprising:
a first anti-reflective layer (Col 2, Lines 7-18); and
a second anti-reflective layer (Col 2, Lines 7-18, discloses more than one layer)
But Haaland ‘081 fails to explicitly disclose a silicon substrate having a top surface; a first anti-reflective layer disposed on the top surface of the silicon substrate; and a second anti-reflective layer disposed on a top surface of the first anti-reflective layer.
Nevertheless, in a related endeavor (Fig 8 of Chang ‘187), Chang ‘187 teaches a silicon substrate (10/20b, Fig 8, Para [0036 and 0098]) having a top surface (top of 10/20b as shown in Fig 8); a first anti-reflective layer (21, Fig 8, Para [0053]) disposed on the top surface (top of 10/20b as shown in Fig 8) of the silicon substrate (10/20b); and a second anti-reflective layer (22, Fig 8, Para [0054]) disposed on a top surface (top of 10/20b as shown in Fig 8) of the first anti-reflective layer (21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Chang ‘187’s teaching of a silicon substrate having a top surface; a first anti-reflective layer disposed on the top surface of the silicon substrate; and a second anti-reflective layer disposed on a top surface of the first anti-reflective layer into Haaland ‘081’s device. Haaland ‘081 disclose a device to improve light transmission and reduce reflectance of that light using anti-reflection coatings. Chang ‘187 teaches a device to capture light using well-known anti-reflection coatings. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using the well-known anti-reflective coatings taught by Chang ‘187 in the device of Haaland ‘081 to achieve the well-known advantage of reducing reflectance of light exposed on the device. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Haaland ‘081 in the manner set forth above, at least, because, as Chang ‘187 teaches in Para [0006] that use of the anti-reflection layers can improve device efficiency.
As incorporated, the first (21) and second (22) anti-reflective layers on a substrate taught by Chang ‘187 would be used in the photomultiplier device of Haaland ‘081.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang ‘187 in view of Sh. A. Furman, A.V. Tikhonravov, Edition Frontieres, BASICS OF OPTICS OF MULTILAYER SYSTEMS, Gif-sur-Yvette 1992, hereinafter Furman et al.
With respect to Claim 3 Chang ‘187 discloses all limitations of the back-illuminated photomultiplier of claim 2, but Chang ‘187 fails to explicitly disclose wherein
the thickness (d1) of the anti-reflective layers having the refractive index n1 is:
PNG
media_image4.png
50
74
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Note examiner’s interpretation that d1 refers to the thickness of the first anti-reflective layer)
the thickness (d2)of the anti-reflective layer having the refractive index n2 is:
PNG
media_image1.png
50
82
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; (Note examiner’s interpretation of the denominator of the d2 thickness equation as 4n2 and that d2 refers to the thickness of the second anti-reflective layer)
λ0 is the wavelength of incident light with minimum reflection.
Nevertheless, in a related endeavor (Chapter 1 of Furman et al.), Furman et al teaches the formula
PNG
media_image5.png
50
161
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, where n1 and n2 are the refractive index of the coating and d1 and d2 are the thickness of the coating layer (Section 1.4.3 of Furman et al., Page 66) and λ0 is wavelength (Section 1.2.2 of Furman et al., Page 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Furman et al.’s teaching of a formula to determine the needed thickness of the first and second anti-reflective layers using the refractive index of said layers and the incident wavelength into Chang ‘187’s device. Chang ‘187 discloses an optical device using anti-reflective coatings to capture as much incident light as possible. Furman et al. teaches a formula to determine the needed thicknesses of multi-layer coating systems to capture incident light. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chang ‘187 in the manner set forth above, at least, Furman et al. provides a formula to determine anti-coating thickness, the use of which would save the person of ordinary skill in the art R&D times and costs to determine coating thickness as opposed to an experimental method for the same.
As incorporated, the equation to determine anti-reflective coating layer thickness taught by Furman et al. would be used to determine the thicknesses of the first (21) and second (22) anti-reflective layers of Chang ‘187.
Claims 11, 13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang ‘187 in view of Matsuda et al. (JP H07235684, hereinafter Matsuda ‘684).
With respect to Claim 11 Chang ‘187 discloses all limitations of the back-illuminated photomultiplier of claim 1, but Chang ‘187 fails to explicitly discloses wherein the photomultiplier reflects less than 15% of photons incident on the photomultiplier averaged across a wavelength range of 200nm-800nm.
Nevertheless, in a related endeavor (Fig 1-10 of Matsuda ‘684), Matsuda ‘684 teaches a reduction in the reflectance of light when using a two layer antireflection coating of MgF2 and ZnS on a substrate (Fig 8, Para [0014] of Matsuda ‘684) at a wavelength of 400nm (Para [0015] of Matsuda ‘684). Matsuda ‘684 fails to expressly disclose wherein the photomultiplier reflects less than 15% of photons incident on the photomultiplier averaged across a wavelength range of 200nm-800nm. However, the examiner notes that in the applicants disclosure teaches wherein the recited percentage has the advantage of, “..multi-layer ARC features to enhance the light trapping and hence reduce the photon losses”. Having this mind, Matsuda ‘684 teaches “…lower the reflectance R, can markedly improve the conversion efficiency” (Para [0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the recited limitation through routine optimization, to obtain the well-known advantage of using a multi-layer ARC to enhance light trapping and hence reduce the photon losses as recited in the claim limitations. See MPEP§2144.05 (II)
With respect to Claim 13 Chang ‘187 discloses all limitations of the back-illuminated photomultiplier of claim 8, but Chang ‘187 fails to explicitly discloses wherein the photomultiplier reflects less than 5% of photons incident on the photomultiplier averaged across a wavelength range of 200nm-800nm.
Nevertheless, in a related endeavor (Fig 1-10 of Matsuda ‘684), Matsuda ‘684 teaches a reduction in the reflectance of light when using a two layer antireflection coating of MgF2 and ZnS on a substrate (Fig 8, Para [0014] of Matsuda ‘684) at a wavelength of 400nm (Para [0015] of Matsuda ‘684). Matsuda ‘684 fails to expressly disclose wherein the photomultiplier reflects less than 15% of photons incident on the photomultiplier averaged across a wavelength range of 200nm-800nm. However, the examiner notes that in the applicants disclosure teaches wherein the recited percentage has the advantage of, “..multi-layer ARC features to enhance the light trapping and hence reduce the photon losses”. Having this mind, Matsuda ‘684 teaches “…lower the reflectance R, can markedly improve the conversion efficiency” (Para [0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the recited limitation through routine optimization, to obtain the well-known advantage of using a multi-layer ARC to enhance light trapping and hence reduce the photon losses as recited in the claim limitations. See MPEP§2144.05 (II)
With respect to Claim 16 Chang ‘187 discloses all limitations of the back-illuminated photomultiplier of claim 15, but Chang ‘187 fails to explicitly discloses wherein the photomultiplier reflects less than 7% of photons incident on the photomultiplier averaged across a wavelength range of 200nm-800nm.
Nevertheless, in a related endeavor (Fig 1-10 of Matsuda ‘684), Matsuda ‘684 teaches a reduction in the reflectance of light when using a two layer antireflection coating of MgF2 and ZnS on a substrate (Fig 8, Para [0014] of Matsuda ‘684) at a wavelength of 400nm (Para [0015] of Matsuda ‘684). Matsuda ‘684 fails to expressly disclose wherein the photomultiplier reflects less than 15% of photons incident on the photomultiplier averaged across a wavelength range of 200nm-800nm. However, the examiner notes that in the applicants disclosure teaches wherein the recited percentage has the advantage of, “..multi-layer ARC features to enhance the light trapping and hence reduce the photon losses”. Having this mind, Matsuda ‘684 teaches “…lower the reflectance R, can markedly improve the conversion efficiency” (Para [0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the recited limitation through routine optimization, to obtain the well-known advantage of using a multi-layer ARC to enhance light trapping and hence reduce the photon losses as recited in the claim limitations. See MPEP§2144.05 (II)
With respect to Claim 18 Chang ‘187 discloses all limitations of the back-illuminated photomultiplier of claim 17, but Chang ‘187 fails to explicitly discloses wherein the photomultiplier reflects less than 5% of photons incident on the photomultiplier averaged across a wavelength range of 200nm-800nm.
Nevertheless, in a related endeavor (Fig 1-10 of Matsuda ‘684), Matsuda ‘684 teaches a reduction in the reflectance of light when using a two layer antireflection coating of MgF2 and ZnS on a substrate (Fig 8, Para [0014] of Matsuda ‘684) at a wavelength of 400nm (Para [0015] of Matsuda ‘684). Matsuda ‘684 fails to expressly disclose wherein the photomultiplier reflects less than 15% of photons incident on the photomultiplier averaged across a wavelength range of 200nm-800nm. However, the examiner notes that in the applicants disclosure teaches wherein the recited percentage has the advantage of, “..multi-layer ARC features to enhance the light trapping and hence reduce the photon losses”. Having this mind, Matsuda ‘684 teaches “…lower the reflectance R, can markedly improve the conversion efficiency” (Para [0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the recited limitation through routine optimization, to obtain the well-known advantage of using a multi-layer ARC to enhance light trapping and hence reduce the photon losses as recited in the claim limitations. See MPEP§2144.05 (II)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A. BERRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5637. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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.
/PAUL A BERRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights