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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurogi et al. (WO 2021/029130).
Re claim 1, Kurogi et al. disclose (Figs. 2, 3, 6, 8, 11 and 13) a semiconductor layer (120) having a photoelectric conversion area (101); and an optical element (150) including a base material and a plurality of opening parts disposed in the base material and having a groove shape (122) passing through the base material in a thickness direction, selecting light having a polarization plane along an arrangement direction of the opening parts, supplying the selected light to the photoelectric conversion area (121), and disposed to overlap the photoelectric conversion area in a plan view (Fig. 2), wherein the opening parts are aligned in a longitudinal direction and are disposed to be separated from each other in a transverse direction, wherein the optical element (150) includes a first area in which the opening parts are arranged in a first direction and a second area in which the opening parts are arranged in a second direction different from the first direction (151), wherein a light incidence face of the semiconductor layer (120) has a plurality of uneven parts (123), wherein a first uneven part that is the uneven part included in a first photoelectric conversion area (121) that is the photoelectric conversion area overlapping the first area in the plan view includes a plurality of concave parts (grooves) arranged in a direction forming a first angle with the first direction or grooves extending in this direction, and wherein a second uneven part that is the uneven part included in a second photoelectric conversion area (121) that is the photoelectric conversion area (121) overlapping the second area in the plan view includes a plurality of concave parts (grooves) arranged in a direction forming the first angle with the second direction or grooves extending in this direction (Figs. 3 and 6).
Re claims 2 and 5, Kurogi et al. disclose wherein the first angle is 90 degrees ([0041]).
Re claims 12 and 13, Kurogi et al. disclose that the optical element is a polarizing part comprising a wire grid in which a plurality of bad shaped conductors are arranged ([0034]).
Re claim 14, Kurogi et al. disclose that the indented/protruding section (122) is formed on the optical element side of the photoelectric conversion region (Fig. 2 & [0039]).
Re claim 15, Kurogi et al. disclose a light detection device (1002); and an optical system (1001), wherein the light detection device includes the device are recited in claim 1 above.
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.
Claim(s) 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurogi et al. as applied to claim1, 2, 5 and 12-15 above, and further in view of Sozo (JP2019046960).
Re claim 8, Kurogi et al. does not disclose wherein the first uneven part and the second uneven part include both the plurality of concave parts arranged in a direction forming the first angle with the first direction or the grooves extending in this direction and the plurality of concave parts arranged in a direction forming the first angle with the second direction or the grooves extending in this direction.
Sozo discloses and indent/protruding section (113) having grooves in a first direction and grooves in a second direction ([0043]-[0057] & Figs. 5 and 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Kurogi et al. and Sozo to consider a proper configuration to achieve a desired light detection.
Re claim 9, Kurogi et al. disclose wherein the first uneven part and the second uneven part have the same shape (Fig. 2).
Re claims 10 and 11, Kurogi et al. disclose using indented/protruding sections having different shapes are use in combination (Fig. 11 & [0069]-[0075]). Kurogi et al. disclose a configuration comprising a single slope (123) (Fig. 8 & [58]-[0061]), instead of the indented/protruding section. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have easily conceived using a configuration without and indented/protruding section in combination as a third photoelectric conversion region.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited quantum efficiency through routine experimentation to achieve a desired incident of photons.
In addition, the selection of quantum efficiency, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed quantum efficiency or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen quantum efficiency or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen quantum efficiency is critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6 and 7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Pending the correction of issues outlined in the rejection above, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
the prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest the following in combination the remaining limitations called for in each claim:
wherein the first angle is 0 degrees, as called for in claim 3;
wherein the first angle is 45 degrees or 135 degrees, as recited in claim 4;
wherein the first angle is in the range of +5 degrees from 0 degrees as its center, as recited in claim 6; and
wherein the first angle is in the range of +5 degrees from 45 degrees as its center or the range of +5 degrees from 135 degrees as its center, as recited in claim 7.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2016/0112614 A1, US 12,046,615 B2, US 10,998,364 B2 and US 11,658,194 B2 disclose a similar configuration of a light detection device with an optical element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1858. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/MICHELLE MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 December 10, 2025