DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions - TRAVERSE
A restriction requirement was mailed on 12/3/25.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (device claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 2/3/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not a serious burden on the Office to examine both inventions. This is not found persuasive because, as noted in sections 2-3 of the restriction requirement, separate searches are required for each of the claims 11-20 than are required for the claims 1-10.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because “um” is not a proper abbreviation, and the claims should be amended as follows: “… wherein a thickness of the P-type diamond layer is between 0.1 [[um]] micrometers to 10 [[um]] micrometers.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The following references are used as evidence:
“Complete Guide to Semiconductor Devices”, 2nd edition, by Kwok Ng, IEEE Press, Wiley-Interscience, 2002, specifically chapters 54 (“Photoconductor”), 55 (“p-i-n Photodiode”), and 59 (“Phototransistor”) (hereinafter “Kwok”);
“Optoelectronic Diamond: Growth, Properties, and Photodetection Applications,” Ying-Jie Lu, Chao-Nan Lin, and Chong-Xin Shan, Adv. Optical Mater. 2018 6, 1800359 (pages 1-16), Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH (2018) (hereinafter “Lu”).
US patent 5382809 (“Nishibayashi”).
Claim 1 recites: “A switch operable under high-voltage and high-power, comprising: a P-type diamond layer doped with an acceptor material; an N-type diamond region doped with a donor material, wherein the N-type diamond region is in contact with the P-type diamond layer; a light blocking layer comprising one or more apertures configured to allow illumination from a light source to pass through to reach the N-type diamond region; a source contact and a drain contact that are at least partially in contact with the P-type diamond layer; and a gate in contact with at least an area of the N-type diamond region, wherein the N-type diamond region, upon receiving the illumination and application of a first bias voltage, is configured to generate a conduction current that remains on in an absence of the illumination.”
It is well known that phototransistors (such as the claimed device) generate a light-induced “photocurrent” during illumination by light. See e.g. Kwok, “the phototransistor is a bipolar junction transistor that amplifies the photocurrent collected by the built-in photodiodes” in the phototransistor (Kwok, page 462), see e.g. Fig. 59.3 wherein the generated current decreases with decreasing light intensity (Kwok, page 464), see e.g. “Photoconductivity is due to the generation of mobile carriers when photons are absorbed in a semiconductor” (Kwok, page 424), see Fig. 54.3 which shows the “dark current” without light applied, and the photocurrent produced under the illumination of light (Kwok, page 425). The photons of light provide the energy required to either move an electron between the conduction band of energy Ec and the valence band of energy Ev (for small bandgap semiconductors) or between impurity levels and the band edges (for wide bandgap semiconductor such as diamond) (see Fig. 54.2, Kwok, page 425). Without the applied light, the bandgap stops current flow, except for the aforementioned “dark current”, which flows at a small level, much smaller than the current the flows during illumination (as shown in Fig. 54.3).
Applicant has claimed that the switch has the property such that “wherein the N-type diamond region, upon receiving the illumination and application of a first bias voltage, is configured to generate a conduction current that remains on in an absence of the illumination”. Because the length of time and the magnitude of the current has not been claimed, this could read on the “dark current” which all phototransistors produce, and it will be interpreted that way.
However, Applicant discloses that when the illumination is stopped, the “on condition” (i.e. the high level of photocurrent) is “locked” or “memorized” “for a prolonged period of time… [such as] minutes, hours, or even days” (see e.g. para 29; see e.g. Fig. 5B). Applicant has not enabled one of ordinary skill in the art as how to produce the “locked”/”memorized” situation wherein current at the same level of the photocurrent flows for minutes, hours, or days after light illumination is turned off.
The claimed device is generically that of a standard phototransistor, having a p-type layer contacting a n-type layer (thus forming an interface), with source, drain, and gate electrodes. The material of the p-type and n-type layers is merely “diamond” doped with either acceptors or donors, depending on the type of the layer. This all results merely in a standard phototransistor made of diamond. Such devices are known (see e.g. Lu and Nishibayashi). Because phototransistors as described in the prior art do not typically exhibit the disclosed situation wherein current at the same level of the photocurrent flows for minutes, hours, or days after light illumination is turned off, Applicant must enable one of ordinary skill in the art as how to produce that situation. They have not done so. They disclose that the device is merely produced by doping the N-type diamond with nitrogen at a level of about 1019 cm-3 with 1.7 eV ionization energy and with boron with ionization energy of 0.38 eV (para 24). These dopants are known in the standard diamond transistors and phototransistors (see e.g. Nishibayashi col 3 lines 6-9 for nitrogen and col 5 lines 28-30 for boron; see Lu, section 5, page 5 for boron). The Applicant has not disclosed any deposition or structural parameters that are critical in resulting in the disclosed situation wherein current at the same level of the photocurrent flows for minutes, hours, or days after light illumination is turned off.
Furthermore, the Applicant has specifically claimed that “the N-type diamond region … is configured to generate a conduction current that remains on in an absence of the illumination”. This requires that the region itself generates a conduction current. It thus precludes the generation to be caused or aided by the P-type diamond region , the gate electrode, the source and drain electrodes, and voltages applied to them, from the generation of current. This specific situation has not been enabled.
Thus, in view of the Wands factors (see next paragraph), one of ordinary skill in the art already understands the geometry of the disclosed switch to be that of a known phototransistor, already understands the disclosed methods of doping p-type and n-type layers with the disclosed dopants, already understands the overall level of doping in the device (Wands factors A-E would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to build a diamond-based phototransistor having all limitations of claim 1 before the “wherein the N-type diamond region…” clause), but the Applicant has not provided any new teachings (according to Wands factors F and G) of processes used to form the N-type region that would result in the claimed situation of “locking” or “memorization”. Because the manufacture of diamond-based transistors and phototransistors goes back decades, without the prior art recognizing the claimed “memorization” or “locking”, the amount of experimentation required would be enormous and highly undue (according to Wands factor H).
The determination of the propriety of a rejection based upon the scope of a claim relative to the scope of enablement involves “determin[ing] if one skilled in the art is enabled to make and use the entire scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.” See MPEP 2164.08. Determination if undue experimentation is necessary is made based on the “In re Wands” factors, “considering all of the evidence related to each of these factors, and any conclusion of nonenablement must be based on the evidence as a whole.” See MPEP 2164.01(a). The Wands factors, listed next, have been considered in the decision of non-enablement. (A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), However, “it is not necessary to discuss each factor in the written enablement rejection. The language should focus on those factors, reasons, and evidence that lead the examiner to conclude that the specification fails to teach how to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation or that the scope of any claimed enablement provided to one skilled in the art is not commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims.” See MPEP 2164.04.
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and inherit its deficiencies without remedying them.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: “A switch operable under high-voltage and high-power, comprising: a P-type diamond layer doped with an acceptor material; an N-type diamond region doped with a donor material, wherein the N-type diamond region is in contact with the P-type diamond layer; a light blocking layer comprising one or more apertures configured to allow illumination from a light source to pass through to reach the N-type diamond region; a source contact and a drain contact that are at least partially in contact with the P-type diamond layer; and a gate in contact with at least an area of the N-type diamond region, wherein the N-type diamond region, upon receiving the illumination and application of a first bias voltage, is configured to generate a conduction current that remains on in an absence of the illumination.”
The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: it is not possible for a person of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement. The claim requires that “the N-type diamond region, upon receiving the illumination and application of a first bias voltage, is configured to generate a conduction current that remains on in an absence of the illumination”. However, there is no disclosed criteria to determine if the limitation is met. For example, if a person builds a switch having the claimed elements before the “wherein” clause, and the observes/measures the device operating such that upon receiving the illumination and application of a first bias voltage, the device generates a conduction current that remains on in an absence of the illumination, it is not possible to know if infringement has occurred because it is not possible to know if it was the N-type diamond region that was configured to cause the conduction current in the absence of light or if it was other parts of the switch that resulted in the conduction current.
If the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. MPEP 2173.02(II-III)
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and inherit its deficiencies without remedying them.
Claim 9 recites “The switch of claim 1, further comprising: the light source that is configured to emit the illumination at a particular wavelength.”
The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: the claim requires the switch to “further comprise” a light source, hence somehow requires a light source within the switch itself. This is not possible, so the exact meaning is unclear. Furthermore, the limitation “the light source” is already recited in claim 1, so it is unclear if the limitation in claim 9 is intended to refer to the light source already recited in claim 1 or to a second light source (which applicant seems to require in e.g. claim 10).
Claim 10 recites: “The switch of claim 1, further comprising: a second light source configured to provide additional illumination to excite free holes in the P-type diamond layer, wherein the additional illumination has a greater energy than an activation energy of the acceptor material and a smaller energy than an activation energy of the donor material.”
The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: the claim requires the switch to “further comprise” a light source, hence somehow requires a light source to be part of the switch. This is not possible, so the exact meaning is unclear.
Furthermore, the claim requires the additional illumination has a greater energy than an activation energy of the acceptor material and a smaller energy than an activation energy of the donor material. It is unclear how this illumination may have energy both greater and less than the activation energy of the donor material.
Furthermore, the claim requires the additional illumination has a greater energy than an activation energy of the acceptor material and a smaller energy than an activation energy of the donor material in order “to excite free holes in the P-type diamond layer”. It is not clear how illumination of energy less than the activation energy and greater than the activation energy can both pertain to holes, since Kwok teaches in Fig. 54.2 that process B creates excess holes from acceptor impurities and thus the required energy is equal to the difference between Ev and the acceptor energy level.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
281
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 of this title, 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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Optoelectronic Diamond: Growth, Properties, and Photodetection Applications,” Ying-Jie Lu, Chao-Nan Lin, and Chong-Xin Shan, Adv. Optical Mater. 2018 6, 1800359 (pages 1-16), Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH (2018) (hereinafter “Lu”) in view of US 5382809 (“Nishibayashi”), US 2017/0007130 A1 (“Spaziani”), and “Complete Guide to Semiconductor Devices”, 2nd edition, by Kwok Ng, IEEE Press, Wiley-Interscience, 2002, specifically chapters 54 (“Photoconductor”), 55 (“p-i-n Photodiode”), and 59 (“Phototransistor”) (hereinafter “Kwok”).
Lu teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image2.png
427
419
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lu teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention:
1. A switch (see e.g. page 1, “semiconductor photodetectors … [of the] following types: photoconductors, Schottky barrier photodiodes, metal–semiconductor–metal (MSM) photodiodes, metal–insulator–semiconductor (MIS) structures, p–n and p–i–n photodiodes, heterojunctions, and phototransistors”) operable under high-voltage and high-power, comprising:
a P-type diamond layer doped with an acceptor material (see e.g. Fig. 2, “p-type diamond”; see page 5, for p-type doping with acceptor dopants);
an N-type diamond region doped with a donor material (see e.g. Fig. 2, “n-type diamond”; see page 5, for p-type doping with donor dopants);
a source contact and a drain contact (see e.g. Fig. 2);
a gate (see e.g. Fig. 2).
Lu does not explicitly teach that the N-type diamond region is in contact with the P-type diamond layer; that the source contact and the drain contact are at least partially in contact with the P-type diamond layer; and that the gate is in contact with at least an area of the N-type diamond region. Rather, Lu shows only one type of phototransistor in Fig. 2, and one type of p-i-n photodiode with the p-type and n-type layers in Fig. 2, but does not show the specific claimed geometry.
Nishibayashi teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image3.png
249
313
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Nishibayashi teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Lu, that the N-type diamond region 180 is in contact with the P-type diamond layer 110; that the source contact 120a and the drain contact 120b are at least partially in contact with the P-type diamond layer 110; and that the gate 130 is in contact with at least an area of the N-type diamond region 180.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Nishibayashi, including the geometry of the diamond transistor shown in Fig. 9, to the invention of Lu. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of using a known geometry of a diamond-based transistor (of Nishibayashi) in place of the only schematically-discussed geometry of photoconductors, photodiodes, and phototransistors of Lu, which is a simple substitution given that Lu recognizes that ‘phototransistors are light-sensitive transistors with the same general structure as normal transistors” (see section 6.6 on page 13) and that Nishibayashi teaches that the disclosed geometry provides good functioning at room temperature and at high temperatures, control over driving voltage, and/or low leakage current (see e.g. col 3 lines 27-62).
Lu does not explicitly teach a light blocking layer comprising one or more apertures configured to allow illumination from a light source to pass through to reach the N-type diamond region.
Spaziani teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image4.png
377
475
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
215
461
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Spaziani teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Lu and Nishibayashi, a light blocking layer (e.g. “metal layers 24”) comprising one or more apertures (“aperture 26”) configured to allow illumination from a light source to pass through to reach the N-type diamond region (e.g. “photodetector active area 22”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Spaziani to the invention of Lu and Nishibayashi. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of narrowing an angular range of the incident light (see e.g. para 14-16).
Lu does not explicitly teach wherein the N-type diamond region, upon receiving the illumination and application of a first bias voltage, is configured to generate a conduction current that remains on in an absence of the illumination.
Kwok teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Lu, Nishibayashi, and Spaziani, wherein the N-type diamond region, upon receiving the illumination and application of a first bias voltage, is configured to generate a conduction current that remains on in an absence of the illumination (see Fig. 54.3 which shows the “dark current” without light applied). Kwok thus teaches explicitly a property known to exist in phototransistors, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have expected this to result from the device of Lu, Nishibayashi, and Spaziani.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Lu, Nishibayashi, Spaziani, and Kwok together further teach and/or would have suggested as obvious at the time of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art:
2. The switch of claim 1, wherein the donor material comprises nitrogen (see Nishibayashi, e.g. col 3 lines 27-31), and wherein the N-type diamond region is doped at a doping level between 1018 to 1019 cm-3 (see e.g. Nishibayashi, e.g. col 3 lines 27-31). The obviousness and rationale for combining Nishibayashi with Lu was already described in claim 1, and that discussion pertains to claim 2, but its duplication here is omitted for brevity.
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed donor material is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, which are criteria that have been held to be necessary for material limitations to be prima facie unobvious. The claimed material is considered to be a "preferred" or "optimum" material out of a plurality of well known materials that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found obvious to provide to the invention of the cited prior art reference, using routine experimentation and optimization of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
3. The switch of claim 1, wherein the acceptor material comprises boron (see e.g. Nishibayashi, e.g. col 5 lines 28-31). The obviousness and rationale for combining Nishibayashi with Lu was already described in claim 1, and that discussion pertains to claim 3, but its duplication here is omitted for brevity.
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed acceptor material is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, which are criteria that have been held to be necessary for material limitations to be prima facie unobvious. The claimed material is considered to be a "preferred" or "optimum" material out of a plurality of well known materials that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found obvious to provide to the invention of the cited prior art reference, using routine experimentation and optimization of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
4. The switch of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the P-type diamond layer is between 0.1 micrometers to 10 micrometers (see e.g. Nishibayashi, e.g. col 8 lines 10-13). The obviousness and rationale for combining Nishibayashi with Lu was already described in claim 1, and that discussion pertains to claim 4, but its duplication here is omitted for brevity.
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed thickness is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical. It has been found that mere changes in the size of an object, lacking any convincing proof of criticality or unobviousness thereof, is not sufficient for patentability. See e.g. MPEP 2144.04; in re Rose, F.3d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); in re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984); To overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, Applicant must show factual evidence that the particular range is critical or achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See e.g. MPEP 716.02(b); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
5. The switch of claim 1, comprising: an N-type diamond layer 180 in contact with a side of the P-type diamond layer 110 (180 contacts the top side of 110, see e.g. Fig. 9) and wherein the gate is in contact with the n-type diamond layer (see e.g. Fig. 9).
The obviousness and rationale for combining Nishibayashi with Lu was already described in claim 1, and that discussion pertains to claim 5, but its duplication here is omitted for brevity.
6. The switch of claim 1, further comprising: a passivation layer (e.g. 25 of Spaziani) in contact with the N-type diamond region and the gate.
The obviousness and rationale for combining Spaziani with Lu and Nishibayashi was already described in claim 1, and that discussion pertains to claim 6, but its duplication here is omitted for brevity.
7. The switch of claim 1, wherein a photon energy of the illumination is greater than an activation energy of the donor material (see e.g. Kwok, Figs. 54.2, 59.6, 59.7, etc., wherein it is well known that the energy must be greater than the energy between the impurity levels and the conduction band edges in wide bandgap semiconductors such as diamond).
The obviousness and rationale for combining Kwok with Lu, Nishibayashi, and Spaziani was already described in claim 1, and that discussion pertains to claim 7, but its duplication here is omitted for brevity. Given the teaching of Kwok, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the need for illumination with energy greater than the activation energy.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
8. The switch of claim 1, wherein a wavelength of the illumination is smaller than a threshold value that is determined based on characteristics of the donor material (see e.g. Kwok, Figs. 54.2, 59.6, 59.7, etc., wherein it is well known that the energy must be greater than the energy between the impurity levels and the conduction band edges in wide bandgap semiconductors such as diamond).
The obviousness and rationale for combining Kwok with Lu, Nishibayashi, and Spaziani was already described in claim 1, and that discussion pertains to claim 8, but its duplication here is omitted for brevity. Given the teaching of Kwok, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the need for illumination with energy greater than the activation energy, which thus requires that the wavelength be smaller than such a threshold value, since one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the energy E = (h * c / wavelength) wherein h is Planck’s constant and c is the speed of light.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
9. The switch of claim 1, further comprising: the light source that is configured to emit the illumination at a particular wavelength (see e.g. Kwok, Figs. 54.2, 59.6, 59.7, etc., wherein it is well known that the energy must be greater than the energy between the impurity levels and the conduction band edges in wide bandgap semiconductors such as diamond).
The obviousness and rationale for combining Kwok with Lu, Nishibayashi, and Spaziani was already described in claim 1, and that discussion pertains to claim 9, but its duplication here is omitted for brevity. Given the teaching of Kwok, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the need for illumination with energy greater than the activation energy, which thus requires that the wavelength be smaller than such a threshold value, since one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the energy E = (h * c / wavelength) wherein h is Planck’s constant and c is the speed of light.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Conclusion
Conclusion / Prior Art
The prior art made of record, because it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but which is not relied upon specifically in the rejections above, is listed on the Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion / Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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.
/Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896