CTNF 18/525,313 CTNF 101464 DETAILED ACTION IDS All references provided in the IDS have been considered. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-19) in the reply filed on 04/02/2026 is acknowledged. Examiner notes the cancellation of claims 20-25. Specification 06-30 AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: missing reference numerals, double use of reference numerals, inconsistent application of reference numerals throughout the specification (with changing names of structures), terms not used/mentioned in the specification but claimed (therefore lacking reference numerals), terms appear to be used interchangeably without clearly defining the relationship. Some examples, but not limited to, are shown below: The specification (for example, ¶ [0019]), ¶ [0020], ¶ [0023]) appears to be missing the reference numerals for “the photodetector diode”. These instances are some examples and more instances may be present in the specification. Appropriate correction is required. The specification appears to switch from using “photodetector diode” to “photodetector” in the specification (for example, ¶ [0024], ¶ [0025], ¶ [0027]). There is no reference numeral for “photodetector” in the specification. The relationship between “photodetector diode” and “photodetector” is unclear. These paragraphs demonstrate examples of the inconsistencies. As “photodetector diode” and “photodetector” are used in the claims, it is suggested that appropriate reference numerals be made for “photodetector diode” and/or “photodetector” in accordance with the drawings, and that these reference numerals be applied consistently throughout the specification. Appropriate correction is required. The specification (for example: ¶ [0018], [0023]) appears to be using the same reference numeral (numeral 102) for different elements: “silicon substrate” and “b-Si structure”. It is suggested that appropriate reference numerals be made in accordance with the drawings and that these reference numerals be applied consistently throughout the specification. Applicant is reminded that no new matter should be added. The specification (for example: ¶ [0018], ¶ [0023], appears to be using the same reference numeral (numeral 104) for different “n-type black silicon (b-Si) structure” “Si layer”. Furthermore, the specification (for example, but not limited to, ¶ [0029], ¶ [0035]), then uses (and not limited to) “b-Si substrate structure”, “b-Si layer”, “b-Si substrate layer”, “nanostructured b-Si layer” and no reference numerals are provided. The relationship between the aforementioned structures and the drawings cannot be determined. As they are claimed elements, appropriate correction is required and must be applied consistently throughout the specification. The specification (for example, ¶ [0023]) is missing reference numerals for “the junction layer”. This is an example of missing reference numerals and more instances may be present. Examiner suggests that the reference numerals in the specification are corrected in accordance with the drawings and applied consistently throughout the specification. Appropriate correction is required. The specification (for example, ¶ [0029]) mentions “the opening”. As “the opening” is a claimed element, a reference numeral in accordance with the drawings must be provided. The specification (for example, ¶ [0029]) mentions “a first portion of the pores”. As “a first portion of the pores” is a claimed element, a reference numeral in accordance with the drawings must be provided. The specification (for example, ¶ [0029]) mentions “a second portion of the pores”. As “a second portion of the pores” is a claimed element, a reference numeral in accordance with the drawings must be provided. The examples above represent some, but not all, of the inconsistencies within the specification. Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is reminded that no new matter should be added to the disclosure . Drawings 06-36 AIA The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “photodetector”, “the opening” “first portion of the pores”, “second portion of the pores”, “the b-Si substrate structure” “b-Si layer” “n-type b-Si layer”, “nanostructured b-Si layer”, “b-Si substrate layer” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 06-22-01 The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “photodetector”, “the opening” “first portion of the pores”, “second portion of the pores”, “the b-Si substrate structure” “b-Si layer” “n-type b-Si layer”, “nanostructured b-Si layer”, “b-Si substrate layer” as described in the specification. No new matter should be entered. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 6, 9, 14, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding Claim 6: Claim 6, line 2 recites “comprises pores various sizes”. It is suggested that the word ‘of’ is added such that the claim reads “comprises pores of various sizes” for clarity. Regarding Claim 6: Claim 6, lines 3-4 recites “conformally coats a surface a first portion of the pores”. It is suggested that the word ‘of’ is added such that the claim reads “conformally coats a surface of a first portion of the pores” for clarity. Regarding Claim 9: the claim is missing a concluding period. Regarding Claim 14: the claim is missing a parenthesis. Examiner suggests “the conjugated polymer is Poly(3,4- ethylenedioxythiophene, PEDOT ) .” Adding the parenthesis between the ‘T’ of PEDOT and the concluding period. Regarding Claim 18: Claim 18, lines 2-3 recites “the photodetector diodes configured to reversibly switches from a…”. It is suggested that the claim reads “the photodetector diodes configured to reversibly switch from a ..” Appropriate correction is required. 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 1: Claim 1, line 5 recites the limitation “the b-Si structure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a b-Si structure” is claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “the n-type b-Si structure”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-17 and 19 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1. Regarding Claim 2: Claim 2, line 2 recites the limitation “the photodetector”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this as no “a photodetector” is claimed. It is unclear what “the photodetector” refers to. It has been interpreted to mean “the photodetector diode”. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 2. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 2: Claim 2, line 4 recites the limitation “the electrodes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this as no “a plurality of electrodes” is claimed. It is unclear where the voltage is to be applied. It has been interpreted to mean a biasing voltage can be applied to the first electrode or the second electrode. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 2. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 3: Claim 3, line 1 recites the limitation “the photodetector of Claim 2”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this as no “a photodetector” is claimed. It is unclear what “the photodetector” refers to. It has been interpreted to mean “the photodetector diode of Claim 2”. Claim 4 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on Claim 3. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 3: Claim 3, line 4 recites the limitation “the photodetector”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this as no “a photodetector” is claimed. It is unclear what “the photodetector” refers to. It has been interpreted to mean “the photodetector diode”. Claim 4 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on Claim 3. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 4: Claim 4, line 1 recites the limitation “the photodetector of Claim 3”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this as no “a photodetector of Claim 3” is claimed. It is unclear what “the photodetector” refers to. It has been interpreted to mean “the photodetector diode of claim 3”. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 4: Claim 4, lines 1-2 recites the limitation “the wavelength of the visible light”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this as no “a wavelength of the visible light” is claimed. It has been interpreted to mean the photodetector diode can detect any wavelength between 400 – 800 nm, which corresponds to a wavelength within the visible light spectrum. Regarding Claim 4: Claim 4, lines 2-3 recites the limitation “the wavelength of the near infrared light”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this as no “a wavelength of the near infrared light” is claimed. It has been interpreted to mean the photodetector diode can detect any wavelength between 800 – 2300 nm, which corresponds to a wavelength within the near infrared light spectrum. Regarding Claim 5: Claim 5, line 1 recites the limitation “the apparatus of claim 1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “an apparatus” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “the photodetector diode of claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 5: Claim 5, line 1 recites the limitation “the b-Si structure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a b-Si structure” is claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “the n-type b-Si structure”. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 6: Claim 6, line 1 recites the limitation “the apparatus of claim 1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “an apparatus” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “the photodetector diode of claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 6: Claim 6, line 1 recites the limitation “the b-Si substrate structure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a b-Si substrate structure” is claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “the n-type b-Si structure”. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 6: Claim 6, lines 3-4 recites the limitation “the opening”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “an opening” is claimed. It has been interpreted to mean any surface of the pores. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 7: Claim 7, line 1 recites the limitation “the apparatus of claim 1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “an apparatus” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “the photodetector diode of claim 1”. Claim 8 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on Claim 7. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 7: Claim 7, line 1 recites the limitation “the b-Si substrate structure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a b-Si substrate structure” is claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “the n-type b-Si structure”. Claim 8 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on Claim 7. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 8: Claim 8, line 1 recites the limitation “the apparatus of claim 7”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “an apparatus” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “the photodetector diode of claim 7”. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 8: Claim 8, line 1 recites the limitation “the pore depth”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a pore depth” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “a depth of the porous layer” appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 9: Claim 9, line 1 recites the limitation “the apparatus of claim 1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “an apparatus” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “the photodetector diode of claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 9: Claim 9, lines 1-2 recites the limitation “the b-Si substrate layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a b-Si substrate layer” is claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “the n-type b-Si structure”. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 10: Claim 10, line 1 recites the limitation “the apparatus of claim 1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “an apparatus” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “the photodetector diode of claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 10: Claim 10, line 2 recites the limitation “the n-type b-Si layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a n-type b-Si layer” is claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “the n-type b-Si structure”. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 11: Claim 11, line 1 recites the limitation “the apparatus of claim 1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “an apparatus” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “the photodetector diode of claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 12: Claim 12, line 1 recites the limitation “the apparatus of claim 1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “an apparatus” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “the photodetector diode of claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 13: Claim 13, line 1 recites the limitation “the apparatus of claim 1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “an apparatus” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “the photodetector diode of claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 14: Claim 14, line 1 recites the limitation “the apparatus of claim 1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “an apparatus” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “the photodetector diode of claim 1”. Claim 15 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 14. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 14: Claim 14, line 1 recites the limitation “the conjugated polymer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a conjugated polymer” has been claimed in Claim 1, the claim from which it depends. It has been interpreted to mean that the junction layer with a conjugated polymer (of claim 13) is PEDOT. Claim 15 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 14. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 15: Claim 15, line 1 recites the limitation “the apparatus of claim 1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “an apparatus” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “the photodetector diode of claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 15: Claim 15, lines 3 recites the limitation “the nanostructured b-Si layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a nanostructured b-Si layer” is claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “the n-type b-Si structure”. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 16: Claim 16, line 1 recites the limitation “the apparatus of claim 1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “an apparatus” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “the photodetector diode of claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 16: Claim 16, lines 1-2 recites the limitation “the second electrode comprises ITO/MoO 3 ”. As written, the scope of the claim is indefinite. It is unclear if the second electrode must comprise either ITO or MoO 3 or must comprise both ITO and MoO 3 . It has been interpreted to mean that the second electrode comprises either ITO or MoO 3 . Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 17: Claim 17, line 1 recites the limitation “the apparatus of claim 1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “an apparatus” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “the photodetector diode of claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 18: Claim 18, lines 4-5 recites the limitation “the electrodes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “plurality of electrodes” has been claimed. It is unclear where and how the voltage is applied. It has been interpreted to mean any voltage/current applied to any portion of any photodetector diodes. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 18: Claim 18, line 6 and line 8 recites the limitation “the photodetector diode”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a photodetector diode” has been claimed. It is unclear which photodetector diode in the plurality of diodes is “the photodetector diode”. It has been interpreted to mean any photodetector diode within the plurality of photodetector diodes. Regarding Claim 19: Claim 19, line 1 recites the limitation “the camera of claim 1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a camera” has been claimed in the claim from which this claim depends. It has been interpreted to mean “the photodetector diode of claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 19: Claim 19, line 1 recites the limitation “the photodetector diodes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “plurality of photodetector diodes” has been claimed in the claim from which this claim depends. It has been interpreted to mean “the photodetector diode”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mikolajczak (US 12436289 B2) . Re: Independent Claim 18, Mikolajczak discloses: A camera (Mikolajczak, depth camera; Fig. 1, element 100) comprising: a plurality of photodetector diodes (Mikolajczak, photodetector array/pin diode layer; Fig. 1, element 6, Col. 1, lines 61-63, "photodetector array includes a plurality of photodetectors"), the photodetector diodes configured to reversibly switches from a broad-band detection mode to a visible-blinded near-infrared (NIR) detecting mode in response to adjusting a biasing voltage (Mikolajczak, Cols. 1-2, lines 65-6) applied to the electrodes (Mikolajczak, photosensitive layer; Fig. 5C, element 33) wherein the photodetector diode provides an electrical signal corresponding to a measure of near infrared light and a visible light while in broad-band detection mode (Mikolajczak, Cols. 13-14, lines 63 -12, the visible light detecting capability can be added in addition to the NIR), wherein the photodetector provides current corresponding to a measure of near infrared light but not visible light while in NIR detecting mode (Mikolajczak, Cols. 12-13, lines 61-18, only detects the wavelengths the dots are sensitive to). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of AIA 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. Claims 1, 5-9, 11-12, 16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein (US 20220302184 A1) in view of Xia (US 20130068297 A1). Re: Independent Claim 1, Finkelstein discloses: A photodetector diode (Finkelstein, photodetector device; Fig. 2B, element 200b) comprising: a first electrode (Finkelstein, first electrode; Fig. 2B, element 107n, ¶ [0056]); a silicon substrate (Finkelstein, sensor wafer; Fig. 2, element 201, ¶ [0076 and ¶ [0078]) having black silicon (b-Si) structure (Finkelstein, textured region/optical structures; Fig. 2B, element 115/115', ¶ [0087]) formed thereon, Finkelstein does not explicitly disclose: a silicon substrate having an n-type black silicon (b-Si) structure formed thereon, Xia discloses: an n-type black silicon (b-Si) structure (Xia, black layer; Fig.1, element 3, ¶ [0044]) Finkelstein discloses an optical structure with a black silicon region/layer for use in a photodetector diode. Finkelstein does not explicitly disclose this to be an n-type black silicon structure. Xia discloses the usage of either an n-type or p-type black silicon layer in a black silicon solar cell. Both Finkelstein and Xia disclose the usage of black silicon for reducing reflectivity (Xia, ¶ [0049]), and are therefore analogous art. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) before the effective filing date to use the n-type black silicon layer disclosed by Xia. Selecting an n-type black silicon is a routine design consideration within a finite set of known parameters (n-type or p-type) and would be obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success of applying a black silicon layer. Finkelstein, as modified by Xia further discloses: the silicon substrate being at least partially disposed on the first electrode; a junction layer coating (Finkelstein, isolation region; Fig. 2B, element 110) applied to the b-Si structure (Finkelstein, ¶ [0068]); and a second electrode (Finkelstein, backside electrode; Fig. 2B, element 107b) positioned on top of the junction layer, the second electrode being transparent (Finkelstein, ¶ [0060]). Re: Dependent Claim 5, Finkelstein and Xia disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, further discloses: wherein the b-Si structure (Finkelstein, textured region/optical structures; Fig. 2B, element 115/115', ¶ [0087]) is porous (Finkelstein, ¶ [0053]). Re: Dependent Claim 6, Finkelstein and Xia disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, further discloses: wherein the b-Si substrate structure (Finkelstein, textured region/optical structures; Fig. 2B, element 115/115', ¶ [0087]) comprises pores (Finkelstein, nano-to micron-sized surface variations; Fid. 2B, not numbered, ¶ [0053]) various sizes (Finkelstein, ¶ [0053]), wherein the junction layer (Finkelstein, isolation region; Fig. 2B, element 110) coating conformally coats a surface a first portion of the pores (Finkelstein, the left portion of 115 can be considered a surface of the first portion of the pores, see attached figure), wherein the junction layer coating covers the opening (Finkelstein, Fig. 2B, the region between layer 115 and 110 can be considered the opening) of a second portion of the pores (Finkelstein, the top portion of layer 115 can be considered a second portion of the pores), leaving a surface of the second portion of the pores uncoated (Finkelstein, Fig. 2B, the topmost surface of the second portion of the PNG media_image1.png 626 805 media_image1.png Greyscale pores, can be considered a surface). Re: Dependent Claim 7, Finkelstein and Xia disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, further discloses: wherein the b-Si substrate structure (Finkelstein, textured region/optical structures; Fig. 2B, element 115/115', ¶ [0087]) comprises macropores and mesopores, wherein the macropores (Finkelstein, micron-sized structure; ¶ [0053]), have diameters greater than 50 nm (Finkelstein, ¶ [0053]), wherein the mesopores (Finkelstein, nanocrystallites, ¶ [0053]) have diameters are less than 50 nm (Finkelstein, ¶ [0053], "from about 10 nm to about 50 nm"). Re: Dependent Claim 8, Finkelstein and Xia disclose all the limitations of claim 7 on which this claim depends. Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, further discloses: wherein the pore depth (Finkelstein, textured region depth; Fig. 2B, element 115) is greater than 2 pm (Finkelstein, ¶ [0053], "textured region may be several hundred nanometers thick"). Re: Dependent Claim 9, Finkelstein and Xia disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, further discloses: wherein the optical reflectance of the b-Si substrate layer (Finkelstein, textured region/optical structures; Fig. 2B, element 115/115', ¶ [0087]) is than less than 10% at 400-1,000 nm (Finkelstein also uses a b-Si layer which therefore has the same optical reflectance). Re: Dependent Claim 11, Finkelstein and Xia disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, further discloses: wherein the junction layer (Finkelstein, isolation region; Fig. 2B, element 110) is transparent under visible and near infrared (NIR) light (Finkelstein, ¶ [0057] "region 110 may be filled with SiO 2 ", which is transparent under visible and near infrared (NIR) light). Re: Dependent Claim 12, Finkelstein and Xia disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, further discloses: wherein the junction layer (Finkelstein, isolation region; Fig. 2B, element 110) has a refractive index of 1.2-1.6 (Finkelstein, ¶ [0057] "region 110 may be filled with SiO 2 ", which has a refractive index of ~1.45 at a wavelength of 633 nm). Re: Dependent Claim 16, Finkelstein and Xia disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, further discloses: wherein the second electrode (Finkelstein, backside electrode; Fig. 2B, element 107b) comprises ITO/MoO3 (Finkelstein, electrodes may be comprised of ITO ¶ [0060]). Claims 2-4, 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein (US 20220302184 A1) in view of Xia (US 20130068297 A1) and in further view of Mikolajczak (US 12436289 B2). Re: Dependent Claim 2, Finkelstein and Xia disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, does not explicitly disclose: wherein the photodetector reversibly switches from a broad-band detection mode to a visible-blinded near-infrared (NIR) detecting mode in response to adjusting a biasing voltage applied to the electrodes. Mikolajczak discloses: wherein the photodetector diode reversibly switches from a broad-band detection mode to a visible-blinded near-infrared (NIR) detecting mode in response to adjusting a biasing voltage (Mikolajczak, Cols. 1-2, lines 65-6) applied to the electrodes (Mikolajczak, photosensitive layer; Fig. 5C, element 33). Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, discloses a photodetector diode, but does not explicitly disclose that the photodetector wherein the photodetector reversibly switches from a broad-band detection mode to a visible-blinded near-infrared (NIR) detecting mode in response to adjusting a biasing voltage applied to the electrodes. Mikolajczak discloses a photodetector diode, wherein each of the silicon-based light-sensitive diodes includes a photosensitive layer comprising a plurality of quantum dot particles sensitive to a certain range of the electromagnetic spectrum (including NIR and visible) for use in a camera. Finkelstein, Xia, and Mikolajczak disclose components for a photodetector diode and are therefore analogous art. It would be obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date to include a photosensitive layer including quantum dot particles, as disclosed by Mikolajczak, arriving at the claimed invention, for the benefit of having more quality information detected (Mikolajczak, Col. 1, lines 13-30). Re: Dependent Claim 3, Finkelstein, Xia, and Mikolajczak discloses all the limitations of claim 2 on which this claim depends. Mikolajczak further discloses: wherein the photodetector provides current corresponding to near infrared light and a visible light while in broad-band detection mode, wherein the photodetector provides current corresponding to near infrared light but not visible light while in NIR detecting mode (Mikolajczak, Cols. 12-13, lines 61-18, only detects the wavelengths the dots are sensitive to). Re: Dependent Claim 4, Finkelstein, Xia, and Mikolajczak discloses all the limitations of claim 3 on which this claim depends. Finkelstein further discloses: wherein the wavelength of the visible light has a wavelength between 400 nm to 800 nm, wherein the wavelength of the near infrared light has a wavelength between 800 nm and 2300 nm (Finkelstein, ¶ [0052], "detect electromagnetic radiation having at least one wavelength in a range from about 800 nm to about 1200nm", also see ¶ [0087]), as it can detect a wavelength of 800 nm, which overlaps with both groups). Re: Dependent Claim 19, Finkelstein and Xia disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, does not explicitly disclose: wherein the photodetector diodes receive a control signal to switch between visible-blinded NIR detecting mode and broad-band detection mode. Mikolajczak discloses: wherein the photodetector diodes receive a control signal to switch between visible-blinded NIR detecting mode and broad-band detection mode (Mikolajczak, Col. 14, lines 13 - 44). Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, discloses a photodetector diode, but does not explicitly disclose that the photodetector diode receives a control signal to switch between the visible-blinded NIR detecting mode and broad-band detection mode. Mikolajczak discloses a photodetector diode, wherein each silicon-based light-sensitive diode includes a photosensitive layer comprising a plurality of quantum dot particles sensitive to a certain range of the electromagnetic spectrum (including NIR and visible) for use in a camera. Finkelstein, Xia, and Mikolajczak disclose components for a photodetector diode and are therefore analogous art. It would be obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date to include a photosensitive layer including quantum dot particles, as disclosed by Mikolajczak, arriving at the claimed invention, for the benefit of having more quality information detected (Mikolajczak, Col. 1, lines 13-30). Claim 10 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein (US 20220302184 A1) in view of Xia (US 20130068297 A1) and in further view of Kameshiro (US 20130140584 A1). Re: Dependent Claim 10, Finkelstein and Xia disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, further discloses: junction layer (Finkelstein, isolation region; Fig. 2B, element 110), and n-type b-Sci layer (Finkelstein, textured region/optical structures; Fig. 2B, element 115/115', ¶ [0087], (Xia, black layer; Fig.1, element 3, ¶ [0044])) Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, fails to disclose: wherein the junction layer forms a Schottky junction with the n-type b-Si layer. Kameshiro discloses: wherein the junction layer (Kameshiro, Schottky electrode; Fig. 1, element 5) forms a Schottky junction with the n-type Si layer (Kameshiro, SiC drift layer of the first conductivity type (n-type); Fig. 1, element 2, ¶ [0012]). Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, discloses a junction layer and a n-type b-Si layer. Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, does not explicitly disclose that the junction layer forms a Schottky junction with the n-type b-Si layer. Kameshiro a junction layer forming a Schottky junction with the n-type Si layer for use in a semiconductor diode. Finkelstein, Xia, and Kameshiro all disclose elements and processes related to diodes and are therefore analogous art. It would be obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date to use the Schottky electrode material and connection of Kameshiro for the junction layer of Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, arriving at the claimed invention, for the benefit of suppressing the reverse leakage current (Kameshiro, ¶ [0004]). Claims 13-14, 17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein (US 20220302184 A1) in view of Xia (US 20130068297 A1) and in further view of Gotanda (US 20180090711 A1). Re: Dependent Claim 13, Finkelstein and Xia disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, further discloses: the junction layer (Finkelstein, isolation region; Fig. 2B, element 110) Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, does not explicitly disclose: wherein the junction layer comprises a conjugated polymer. Gotanda discloses: wherein the junction layer (Gotanda, base layer; Fig. 5, element 44) comprises a conjugated polymer (Gotanda, ¶ [0130], base layer contains PEDOT, which is a conjugated polymer). Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, discloses a junction layer, but do not explicitly disclose this junction layer to be a conjugated polymer. Gotanda discloses the use of a junction layer (base layer) in a photoelectric conversion element for preventing defects (Gotanda, ¶ [0080] and further discloses this base layer comprises a conjugated polymer (Gotanda, ¶ [0130]). Finkelstein, Xia, and Gotanda disclose elements and configurations related to photoelectric processes and are therefore analogous art. It would be obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date to include a conjugated polymer to the junction layer of Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, as a conductive, high molecular compound (Gotanda, ¶ [0075]) can easily be integrated into the manufacturing process. Re: Dependent Claim 14, Finkelstein and Xia disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, do not explicitly disclose: wherein the conjugated polymer is Poly(3,4- ethylenedioxythiophene, PEDOT. Gotanda discloses: wherein the conjugated polymer is Poly(3,4- ethylenedioxythiophene, PEDOT (Gotanda, ¶ [0130], base layer contains PEDOT, which is the conjugated polymer). Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, do not disclose a conjugated polymer and they are silent regarding the conjugated polymer being PEDOT. Gotanda discloses a conjugated polymer (Gotanda, ¶ [0130]) and the conjugated polymer being PEDOT (Gotanda, ¶ [0075]). Finkelstein, Xia, and Gotanda disclose elements and configurations related to photoelectric processes and are therefore analogous art. It would be obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date to include a conjugated polymer high molecular compound (Gotanda, ¶ [0075]) to the junction layer of Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, which is made of PEDOT (Gotanda, ¶ [0075]) as it can easily be integrated into the manufacturing process. Re: Dependent Claim 17, Finkelstein and Xia disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, further discloses: the first electrode (Finkelstein, first electrode; Fig. 2B, element 107n, ¶ [0056]) Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, do not explicitly disclose: wherein the first electrode comprises aluminum. Gotanda discloses: wherein the first electrode (Gotanda, electrode; Fig. 5, element 2) comprises aluminum (Gotanda, ¶ [0063]). Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, disclose a first electrode but do not explicitly disclose this electrode to comprise aluminum. Gotanda discloses an electrode comprising aluminum for use in a photoelectric conversion element (Gotanda, ¶ [0063]). Finkelstein, Xia, and Gotanda disclose elements and configurations related to photoelectric processes and are therefore analogous art. It would be obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date to include aluminum in the first electrode of Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, due to its work function and compatibility in photoelectric conversion devices (Gotanda, ¶ [0063]). Claims 15 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein (US 20220302184 A1) in view of Xia (US 20130068297 A1) in further view of Gotanda (US 20180090711 A1) and in further view of Gleason (US 11677078 B2). Re: Dependent Claim 17, Finkelstein, Xia, and Gotanda disclose all the limitations of claim 14 on which this claim depends. Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, further discloses: b-Si layer (Finkelstein, textured region/optical structures; Fig. 2B, element 115/115', ¶ [0087]) Gotanda further discloses: PEDOT (Gotanda, ¶ [0130], base layer contains PEDOT, which is the conjugated polymer). Finkelstein, as modified by Xia and Gotanda, does not explicitly disclose: wherein the PEDOT is synthesized by an oxidative chemical vapor deposition process (oCVD) such that the PEDOT is conformally coated to the nanostructured b-Si layer Gleason discloses: wherein the PEDOT is synthesized by an oxidative chemical vapor deposition process (oCVD) such that the PEDOT is conformally coated to the porous substrate (Gleason, Figs. 1A - 1D, Col. 1, lines 47 - 50). Finkelstein, as modified by Xia, discloses a b-Si layer but does not disclose PEDOT. Gotanda further modified Finkelstein and Xia and discloses PEDOT, but does not disclose the PEDOT to be synthesized using an oxidative chemical vapor deposition (oCVD) process. Gleason discloses using an oCVD process to conformally coat PEDOT on a porous substrate (Gleason, Col. 1, lines 47-50). Finkelstein, Xia, Gotanda, and Gleason disclose methods and components related to photoelectric processes and are therefore analogous art. It would be obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date to use oCVD to conformally coat PEDOT, as disclosed by Gleason, to the structure of Finkelstein, as modified by Xia and Gotanda, for the benefit of nanoscale control over thickness and texture (Gleason, Col. 4, lines 63-64). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIMARTA KAUR CHOWDHARY whose telephone number is (571)272-7679. The examiner can normally be reached usually Monday - Thursday, 6:45 AM - 4:45 PM (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, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571) 270-3691. 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. /NIMARTA KAUR CHOWDHARY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /Leonard Chang/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 2 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 3 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 4 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 5 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 6 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 7 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 8 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 9 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 10 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 11 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 12 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 13 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 14 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 15 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 16 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 17 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 18 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 19 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 20 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 21 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 22 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 23 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 24 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 25 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 26 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/525,313 Page 27 Art Unit: 2898
Prosecution Insights