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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/26/24, 4/25/24, 9/30/24, 2/11/25,7/29/25 are being considered by the examiner.
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(s) 1, 2, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20210151612 A1 hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses in Fig 4: A light sensor, comprising:
a lower electrode layer (14);
an absorption layer (122) located on the lower electrode layer, wherein the absorption layer comprises a material that has an electron mobility greater than 300 cm²/Vs and greater than twice as many as a hole mobility, the absorption layer is configured to generate a photocurrent through a difference between the electron mobility and the hole mobility; and
an upper electrode layer (13) located on the absorption layer, configured to collect electrons in the photocurrent [0015, 0018, 0038]. Examiner notes that since the material of the absorption layer disclosed by Lee in [0039] is same as that disclosed by the Applicant in [0039], Lee’s absorption layer would have an electron mobility greater than 300 cm²/Vs and greater than twice as many as a hole mobility, the absorption layer is configured to generate a photocurrent through a difference between the electron mobility and the hole mobility. It is the Examiner’s position that the limitation of "the absorption layer is configured to generate a photocurrent through a difference between the electron mobility and the hole mobility” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed and has therefore not been given patentable weight. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee discloses in Fig 4: The light sensor of claim 1, wherein the absorption layer comprises a semiconductor-semiconductor junction with a downward built-in electric field, a semiconductor-semimetal junction with a downward built-in electric field, a semimetal-semimetal junction with a downward built-in electric field or a combination thereof [0031, 0039]. It is the Examiner’s position that the limitation of "with a downward built-in electric field” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed and has therefore not been given patentable weight. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 6, Lee discloses in Fig 4: The light sensor of claim 1, further comprising: a substrate (11) located between the absorption layer (122) and the lower electrode layer (14).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee discloses in Fig 4: The light sensor of claim 6, further comprising: a buffer layer (121) located between the substrate (11) and the absorption layer (122).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee discloses in Fig 4: The light sensor of claim 1, wherein a top view shape of the upper electrode layer (13) is a rectangle (See Fig 1A).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20210151612 A1 hereinafter Lee) in view of Ariyanwasa et al (US 10,297,708 B2 hereinafter Ariyanwasa).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee discloses in Fig 4: The light sensor of claim 8.
Lee does not disclose: wherein the upper electrode layer is a transparent conductive film comprises indium tin oxide (ITO) or aluminum zinc oxide (AZO).
However, Ariyanwasa discloses in Fig 6B: wherein the upper electrode layer is a transparent conductive film comprises indium tin oxide (ITO) or aluminum zinc oxide (AZO) (Col 12 lines 10-15).
References Lee and Ariyanwasa are analogous art because they both are directed to Optical sensor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify device of Lee with the specified features of Ariyanwasa because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to combine teachings of Lee and Ariyanwasa so that the upper electrode layer is a transparent conductive film comprises indium tin oxide (ITO) or aluminum zinc oxide (AZO) as taught by Aruyanwasa in Lee’s device since, this mitigates surface leakage current.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klipstein et al (US 9,613,999 B2 hereinafter Klipstein).
Regarding Claim 1, Klipstein discloses in prior art section Fig 1B: A light sensor, comprising:
a lower electrode layer (81);
an absorption layer (40) located on the lower electrode layer, wherein the absorption layer comprises a material that has an electron mobility greater than 300 cm²/Vs and greater than twice as many as a hole mobility, the absorption layer is configured to generate a photocurrent through a difference between the electron mobility and the hole mobility; and
an upper electrode layer (80) located on the absorption layer, configured to collect electrons in the photocurrent (Col 4 lines 15-30). Examiner notes that since the material of the absorption layer disclosed by Klipstein in Col 9 lines 1-9 is same as that disclosed by the Applicant in [0039], Klipstein’s absorption layer would have an electron mobility greater than 300 cm²/Vs and greater than twice as many as a hole mobility, the absorption layer is configured to generate a photocurrent through a difference between the electron mobility and the hole mobility. It is the Examiner’s position that the limitation of "the absorption layer is configured to generate a photocurrent through a difference between the electron mobility and the hole mobility” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed and has therefore not been given patentable weight. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 5, Klipstein discloses in prior art section Fig 1B: The light sensor of claim 1, wherein the upper electrode layer and the absorption layer form an Ohmic contact or a Schottky contact (Col 19 lines 35-43).
Regarding Claim 10, Klipstein discloses in prior art section Fig 1B: The light sensor of claim 1, further comprising: a capping layer (10) located on the absorption layer (40) and surrounding the upper electrode layer (80) (Col 4 lines 15-30).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Mathai et al (US 2017/0018664 A1 hereinafter Mathai).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee discloses: The light sensor of claim 1.
Lee does not disclose: wherein a top view shape of the upper electrode layer is at least one of a comb shape, a tree shape, a mesh shape or a helical shape.
However, Mathai discloses in Fig 4C: wherein a top view shape of the upper electrode layer (419) is at least one of a comb shape, a tree shape, a mesh shape or a helical shape.
References Lee and Mathai are analogous art because they both are directed to Optical sensor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify device of Lee with the specified features of Mathai because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to combine teachings of Lee and Mathai so that a top view shape of the upper electrode layer is at least one of a comb shape, a tree shape, a mesh shape or a helical shape as taught by Mathai in Lee’s device since, this results in Photodetector quantum efficiency improvement, without negatively affecting photodetector speed.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Mathai et al (US 2017/0018664 A1 hereinafter Mathai) and further in view of Ang et al (US 2011/0147870 A1 hereinafter Ang).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee and Mathai disclose: The light sensor of claim 3.
Lee and Mathai do not disclose: wherein the upper electrode layer is located in a trench of the absorption layer.
However, Ang discloses in Fig 6F: wherein the upper electrode layer (616/620) is located in a trench of the absorption layer (612/615).
References Lee, Ang and Mathai are analogous art because they both are directed to Optical sensor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify device of Lee and Mathai with the specified features of Ang because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to combine teachings of Lee, Ang and Mathai so that the upper electrode layer is located in a trench of the absorption layer as taught by Ang in Lee’s and Mathai’s device since, this improves signal-to-noise ratio.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NISHATH YASMEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571-272-1670. 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.
/NISHATH YASMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights