DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Response to Amendment/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Species II, Sub-species 1, Sub-sub-species A, and Claims 33-35, 45, and 57-59 in the reply filed on May 04, 2026 is acknowledged. Thus, Claims 7-8, 15-18, 25-26, 36, 53-54, and 60-61 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 04, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 33-35 and 57-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by CN-105914216-A to Geng et al. (“Geng”). As to claim 33, Geng discloses an image sensor device comprising: a sensor comprising: a quantum dot layer (301) on electrodes (top 204, 206) of a substrate, the substrate comprising: the electrodes (top 204, 206); an interconnect layer (205); and conductive features (bottom 204), wherein the electrodes (top 204, 206) are electrically connected to the conductive features (bottom 204) via interconnects (at 202) in the interconnect layer (205); and an image processor device (101, Page 5), wherein the sensor is hybrid bonded to the image processor device (101, Page 5) without use of an intervening adhesive to connect the conductive features (bottom 204) of the sensor to conductive features (201) of the image processor device (101, Page 5) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Page 1-Page 7). As to claim 34, Geng further discloses wherein the sensor further comprises a dielectric layer (passivation layer, light filter, microlens, Page 7) on the quantum dot layer (301) (See Page 7). As to claim 35, Geng further discloses wherein the electrodes (top 204, 206) are planar to a surface of the interconnect layer (205) (See Fig. 4). As to claim 57, Geng further discloses wherein the electrodes (top 204, 206) comprise a plurality of first electrodes (top 204) and a plurality of second electrodes (top 206) in a rectangular array (See Fig. 4, Fig. 5). As to claim 58, Geng further discloses wherein: each electrode (top 204, 206) is arranged in an alternating pattern of the first and second electrodes (top 204, 206) when viewed from top down or bottom up (See Fig. 4, Fig. 5). As to claim 59, Geng further discloses wherein: the first electrodes (top 204) are to be biased with an opposite bias of the second electrodes (top 206) (See Page 5, Page 6). Further regarding claim 59, the claim limitation “are to be biased with an opposite bias of the second electrodes” specifies an intended use or field of use, and is met by the prior art since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim(s) 33-35, 45, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0035780 A1 to Itahashi et al. (“Itahashi”). As to claim 33, Itahashi discloses an image sensor device comprising: a sensor comprising: a quantum dot layer (305, ¶ 0028) on electrodes (303) of a substrate, the substrate comprising: the electrodes (303); an interconnect layer (301); and conductive features (bottom 302), wherein the electrodes (303) are electrically connected to the conductive features (bottom 302) via interconnects (between 302 and 303) in the interconnect layer (301); and an image processor device (300, ¶ 0025), wherein the sensor is hybrid bonded to the image processor device (300, ¶ 0025) without use of an intervening adhesive to connect the conductive features (bottom 302) of the sensor to conductive features (signal readout circuit ¶ 0025) of the image processor device (300) (See Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 8, ¶ 0025-¶ 0028). As to claim 34, Itahashi further discloses wherein the sensor further comprises a dielectric layer (304) on the quantum dot layer (305) (See Fig. 3, ¶ 0026). As to claim 35, Itahashi further discloses wherein the electrodes (303) are planar to a surface of the interconnect layer (301) (See Fig. 3). As to claim 45, Itahashi further discloses wherein: the electrodes (303) comprise pairs of electrodes (303 in IP and AP); the quantum dot layer (305) is spin coated to form a continuous quantum dot layer (305); and a spacing between a first pair of electrodes (303 in left IP and AP) to a second pair of electrodes (303 in right IP and AP) is greater than about two times a thickness of the quantum dot layer (305) (See Fig. 3, Fig. 8) (Notes: the spin coated is well-known and also taught by Geng). Further regarding claim 45, the limitation “is spin coated to form” is a product-by-process limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. It has been held it has been held that “The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979). As to claim 57, Itahashi further discloses wherein the electrodes (303) comprise a plurality of first electrodes (303) and a plurality of second electrodes (303) in a rectangular array (See Fig. 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-6.
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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/DAVID CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights