DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beechem (US 9,293,627).
With regards to claim 1, fig. 2c of Beechem discloses an apparatus comprising: a photodetection layer 15, wherein: the photodetection layer 15 comprises one 15 or more photodetection materials (”graphene 15”, col. 4 ll. 21), and the photodetection layer 15 is configured to generate a photoresponse in response to an incident source (“incident light”, col. 1 ll. 53); a mirror (‘backside metal layer 34 … back metal reflector “, col. 4 ll. 49-50) configured to reflect (“reflector”, col. 4 ll. 50) a portion of the incident source (“incident light”, col. 1 ll. 53) to the photodetection layer 15, wherein the mirror 34 is substantially parallel (top horizontal portion of mirror 34) with the photodetection layer 15 and is spaced away from the photodetection layer 15 by a separation distance (distance between 15 and top of 34); a voltage source 16 electrically connected with the photodetection layer 15; and a voltage drain 17 electrically connected with the voltage source 16 and the photodetection layer 15, wherein the voltage drain 17 and the voltage source 16 are configured to measure the photoresponse generated by the photodetection layer, wherein a photoresponse matrix associated with the apparatus is configured with values determined based at least in part on the photoresponse of the photodetection layer 15 generated based at least in part on the separation distance (distance between 15 and top of 34) to tune photodetection layer absorption properties (“tunable photodetection”, col. 3 ll. 50).
With regards to claim 2, fig. 2c of Beechem discloses that the voltage source 16 and the voltage drain 17 each comprise a conductive metal (“source and drain metals 16 and 17”, col. 4 ll. 23-24).
With regards to claim 7, fig. 2c of Beechem discloses comprising a first gate electrode 34 configured to apply an electrical voltage bias to the photodetection layer 15.
With regards to claims 8, fig. 2c of Beechem discloses a top surface of the first gate electrode 34 comprises a mirror configured to reflect (“back metal reflector “, col. 4 ll. 50) at least a portion of the incident source (“incident light”, col. 1 ll. 53) to the photodetection layer 15.
With regards to claim 9, fig. 2c of Beechem discloses a dielectric layer (“a conductive back gate disposed on the backside and insulated from the bilayer graphene layer”, claim 1) is positioned between the voltage source 16 and the first gate electrode 34 and the voltage drain 17 and the first gate electrode 34.
With regards to claim 10, fig. 2c of Beechem discloses the photodetection layer 15 is suspended (15 kept from falling by 31) above the mirror 34 by a separation distance (distance between 15 and 34), and wherein the photodetection layer 15 is substantially parallel with respect to the mirror (top horizontal portion of 34).
With regards to claim 11, fig. 2c of Beechem discloses that the separation distance (distance between 15 and 34) ranges between approximately 0.1-10 micron (more than “100 nm”, col. 4 ll. 20).
With regards to claim 12, fig. 2c of Beechem discloses that the photodetection layer 15 comprises one or more nanostructures 15 configured to extend from a first end (left end of 15) of the photodetection layer 15 to a second end (right end of 15) of the photodetection layer 15.
With regards to claim 13, fig. 2c of Beechem discloses that the one 15 or more nanostructures each define a nanostructure 15 width and are separated by a nanostructure separation distance.
With regards to claim 14, fig. 2c of Beechem discloses a second gate electrode 19 (“top gate electrode”, col. 4 ll. 36) configured to apply an electrical voltage bias to the photodetection layer 15 either in addition to or in lieu of the electrical voltage bias applied by the first gate electrode 34.
With regards to claim 15, fig. 2c of Beechem discloses that the photodetection layer 15 is positioned between the first gate electrode 34 and the second gate electrode 19.
With regards to claim 16, fig. 2c of Beechem discloses that the voltage source 16 and voltage drain 17 are positioned between the second gate electrode 19 and the photodetection layer 15.
With regards to claim 17, fig. 2c of Beechem discloses a bottom surface of the second gate electrode 19 comprises a dielectric layer 18 such that the second gate electrode 19 is electrically isolated from the voltage source 16 and voltage drain 17.
With regards to claim 18, fig. 2c of Beechem discloses that the photodetection layer 15 is positioned between a top dielectric layer 18 and a bottom dielectric layer 31.
With regards to claim 20, fig. 2c of Beechem discloses that the photodetection layer 15 is positioned between a top dielectric layer 18 and a bottom dielectric layer 31.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beechem (US 9,293,627) in view of Fu (US 6,936,526).
With regards to claim 3, fig. 2c of Beechem discloses a base substrate 31, wherein the photodetection layer 15 is positioned on a top side of the base substrate 31, and each of the voltage source 16 and the voltage drain 17 is positioned on a top side of the photodetection layer 15, opposite the base substrate 31.
Beechem does not disclose a plurality of quantum well structures defined by the photodetection layer.
However, fig. 4 of Fu discloses a plurality of quantum well structures (“quantum well heterostructure 2 “, col. 4 ll. 22) defined by the photodetection layer (“quantum well infrared photodetectors”, col. 5 ll. 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the photodetector of Beechem with the Quantum well heterostructure as taught in Fu in order to tune the wavelength range of the photodetector. See abstract of fu.
With regard to claim 4, Beechem does not disclose that the plurality of quantum well structures further comprise a plurality of quantum well groups each of which is associated with a peak absorption wavelength.
However, fig. 4 of Fu discloses that the plurality of quantum well structures 2 further comprise a plurality of quantum well groups 2 each of which is associated with a peak absorption wavelength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the photodetector of Beechem with the Quantum well heterostructure as taught in Fu in order to tune the wavelength range of the photodetector. See abstract of fu.
With regards to claim 5, fig. 2c of Beechem discloses that the base substrate 31 comprises a group III- group IV material (“silicon carbide”, col. 4 ll. 8), silicon, or germanium.
With regards to claim 6, Beechem does not discloses that the base substrate is configured to epitaxially grow the plurality of quantum wells.
However, fig. 4 of Fu discloses that the base substrate 4 is configured to epitaxially grow the plurality of quantum wells 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the photodetector of Beechem with the Quantum well heterostructure as taught in Fu in order to tune the wavelength range of the photodetector. See abstract of fu.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beechem (US 9,293,627) in view of Zheng (US 2021/0111349).
With regards to claim 19, fig. 2c of Beechem discloses each of the top dielectric layer 18 comprises one or more of boron nitride, silicon oxide (“ SiO.sub.2”, col. 4 ll. 30), silicon nitride, aluminum oxide, or hafnium oxide.
Beechem does not disclose the bottom dielectric layer comprises one or more of boron nitride, silicon oxide, silicon nitride, aluminum oxide, or hafnium oxide.
However, fig. 2 of Zheng discloses the bottom dielectric layer 221 comprises one or more of boron nitride, silicon oxide (“substrate 221 can be, e.g., silicon dioxide.”, par [0079]), silicon nitride, aluminum oxide, or hafnium oxide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the substrate of Beechem with the silicon dioxide of Zheng in order to provide electrical insulation between photodetectors. See par [0079] of Zheng.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN T LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-6009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00am-7:30pm.
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, Yara J Green can be reached at 571 270-3035. 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.
/BENJAMIN TZU-HUNG LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights