DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The examiner proposes: INFRARED DETECTOR WITH A PHOTONIC CRYSTAL OVER AN ABSORPTION LAYER
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites “multi-coupled topological defects”. So far as the examiner can determine, this is not a term of art. There are only a very small number of references that use this term, and they are all Chinese references, leading the examiner to believe that this perhaps a direct translation of a term in Chinese that does not correspond with a term that is commonly used in English. The examiner understands this to mean that the defects together provide a light-directing phenomenon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Joe, US 2022/0384666 A1.
Claim 1: Joe discloses a short-wave infrared detector unit device ([0005]), comprising
a substrate (bottom of layer 50), and an epitaxial layer (PD) arranged on a surface of the substrate, wherein an outermost layer of the epitaxial layer is an absorption layer (9);
The term “epitaxial” is a product-by-process term that is limiting only as the resulting structure. In this case the resulting structure is the fact that the layer that has a continuous crystal with the underlying substrate. Here, as there is a substrate with a continuous crystal, it reads on this limitation.
wherein the short-wave infrared detector unit device further comprises a photonic crystal structure layer [20] with multi-coupled topological defects [H] arranged on a surface of the absorption layer (9), the photonic crystal structure layer with multi-coupled topological defects is a third dielectric material layer [silicon, [0053]] with a through-hole structure (H), the third dielectric material layer (3) has a refractive index of n3 (=3.48, [0061]);
the through-hole structure comprises first through holes (1) in periodic arrangement and second through holes (2) in periodic arrangement;
each of the first through holes (1) is filled with a first dielectric material (air, [0089]), the first dielectric material has a refractive index of n1 (=1);
each of the second through holes (2) is filled with a second dielectric material (air, [0089]), and the second dielectric material has a refractive index of n2 (=1), wherein n1 is less than n3, and n2 is less than n3;
wherein a periodic arrangement rule of the first through holes (1) is that: a center of any of the first through holes (1) is taken as a center of a first regular hexagon, a side length of the first regular hexagon is La, and six vertexes of the first regular hexagon correspond to centers of other six first through holes (1), respectively;
and a periodic arrangement rule of the second through holes (2) is that: the third dielectric material layer (3) is divided into a plurality of rectangular regions with a center of one of the first through holes (1) as a center of one of the plurality of rectangular regions, a length x width of each of the plurality of rectangular regions is 8 La x 6.92 La, the plurality of rectangular regions do not overlap each other, the center of each of the plurality of rectangular regions is taken as a center of a second regular hexagon, a side length of the second regular hexagon is 2 La, and six vertexes of the second regular hexagon correspond to centers of the second through holes (2).
PNG
media_image1.png
654
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In annotated FIG. 12 above, through holes 2 are marked with a 2, and through holes 1 are the unmarked holes. Compare applicant’s FIG. 1, which has the same geometry, and thus meets the geometric limitations of claim 1. Note that the first and second dielectric materials are not distinguished from one another in the claims, and thus may be the same material.
Claim 2: the absorption layer (9) is made of InAs (“indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs)” [0066]; InGaAs is a mixture of InAs and GaAs), and a thickness h of the absorption layer is 0.1 µm; an infrared absorption wavelength of the short-wave infrared detector unit device is 1.55 µm (“light in the 1000 nm-3000 nm band” [0066]).
Joe discloses at [0062] that “the thickness T of the cavity layer 50 may be in the range of 100 nm-500 nm, and in example embodiments, the thickness T of the cavity layer 50 may be in the range of 140 nm-200 nm.” The absorption layer can be considered the top 100 nm (0.1 µm) of layer 50.
Claim 5: n3 is from 3 to 5 (3.48, [0061]), n1 is from 1 to 2 (1), and n2 is from 1 to 2.29 (1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 3, 4, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joe.
Claim 3: Joe does not disclose the thickness H of the photonic crystal structure layer with multi-coupled topological defects; however, changes in dimension are not typically a source of patentable distinction absent unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04(IV).
Claim 4: Joe does not disclose the dimension La; however changes in dimension are not typically a source of patentable distinction absent unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04(IV).
Claim 6: a diameter Da of each of the first through holes (1) is from 0.2 µm to 0.8 µm (200 nm, [0040]), and a diameter Db of each of the second through holes (2) is from 0.1 to 0.8 µm (200 nm, [0040]). The range of Joe overlaps with the claimed range. As Joe specifically mentions 200 nm, this would strongly make such a distance obvious.
Claim 11: a diameter Da of each of the first through holes (1) is from 0.2 µm to 0.8 µm (200 nm, [0040]), and a diameter Db of each of the second through holes (2) is from 0.1 to 0.8 µm (200 nm, [0040]). The range of Joe overlaps with the claimed range. As Joe specifically mentions 200 nm, this would strongly make such a distance obvious.
Claims 10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joe in view of Chen, US 2007/0001183 A1.
Claims 10 and 12-16: Joe discloses: depositing a third dielectric material [20] on a surface of an absorption layer to form a third dielectric material layer (3); etching first through holes (1) ([0071]) on the third dielectric material layer (3) according to a periodic arrangement rule of the first through holes (1), and filling each of the first through holes (1) with a first dielectric material (air, [0034]); etching second through holes (2) ([0071]) on the third dielectric material layer (3) having the first through holes (1) according to an arrangement rule of the second through holes (2), and filling each of the second through holes (2) with a second dielectric material (air, [0034]), to obtain the short-wave infrared detector unit device [0005]).
Joe does not disclose the deposition of the third dielectric material 20 on a surface of the absorption layer 50. However, this was known in the art. See Chen, which discloses a Bragg reflector layer 204, similar to Joe layer 20, is formed by epitaxy ([0018]). It would have been obvious to form layer 20 of Joe by this method, which falls within scope of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims allowed. The examiner did not find the structure with the claimed detailed indices of refraction and other details, nor a reason that this would have been obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1596. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469.295.9060. 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.
/PETER BRADFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897