DETAILED ACTION
National Stage Application
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 Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”. Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… structure patterned by the at least one active layer area. In the present invention, the patterned structure may be formed in various forms such as a circle and polygons such as a square, a hexagon, and an octagon …” in paragraphs 38 and 39) serves as a glossary (see for the claim term “structure patterned by the at least one active layer area”.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 7-13, 18, 19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swelm et al. (US 2020/0365749) in view of Imalka Jayawardena et al. (Millimeter-scale unipolar transport in high sensitivity organic–inorganic semiconductor X-ray detectors, ACS Nano Vol. 13, no 6 (May 2019), pp. 6973-6981 and Supplementary Information, pp. 1-8).
In regard to claim 1, Swelm et al. disclose a radiation detection device, comprising:
(a) at least one bottom electrode and at least one top electrode disposed at a spaced location (e.g., “… photodiode comprising an ohmic contact 24 … and a top electrode 32 … ionizing radiation detector with the ability to detect X-rays or gamma rays …” in paragraphs 49 and 91); and
(b) a semiconductor substrate disposed between the bottom electrode and the top electrode (e.g., see “… substrate layer 26 … substrate layer 26 is less than 100 wt% semiconductor, the composition may also comprise an organic semiconductor matrix such as polyvinylcarbazole (PVK), poly(3-hexylthiophene) (P3HT), PBBDTTT-CT, phthalocyanine complex, a porphyrin complex, a polythiophene (PT), a derivative of polythiophene, a polycarbazole, a derivative of polycarbazole, a poly(p-phenylene vinylene) (PPV), a PPV derivative, a polyfulorene (PF), a benzodithiophene (BDT)-based polymer, a PF derivative, a cyclopentadithiophene-based polymer, a P3DOT, P30T, PMeT, P3DDT, PDDTV, PQT, F8T2, PBTTT-C12, PFDDTBT, BisEH-PFDTBT, BisDMOPFDTBT, PCDTBT or combinations and mixtures thereof. In one embodiment, the semiconductor comprises silicon, germanium, indium gallium arsenide, lead (II) sulfide, indium phosphor, and/or mercury cadmium telluride. In other embodiments, the semiconductor may be a group IV semiconductor, such as silicon or germanium, and may be doped with aluminum, boron, phosphorous, or gallium. Alternatively, the semiconductor may be a group III-V semiconductor such as aluminum phosphide, aluminum arsenide, gallium arsenide, or gallium nitride and doped with beryllium, zinc, cadmium, silicon, or germanium …” in Fig. 2 and paragraphs 49 and 51),
wherein an upper end portion of the semiconductor substrate includes at least one active layer area, and the active layer area is filled with a nanocomposite including a zero-dimensional nanoparticle (e.g., “… light absorption layer 30 of the photodiode comprises nanomaterials such as quantum dots, quantum rods, and/or quantum wires … nanomaterials of the light absorption layer 30 comprise lead sulfide (PbS), lead selenide (PbSe), lead telluride (PbTe), cadmium selenide (CdSe), cadmium sulfide (CdS), and/or cadmium telluride (CdTe). In other embodiments the quantum dots, quantum rods, and/or quantum wires may comprise other materials such as cesium lead halide perovskites (CsPbX3, where X=Cl, Br, or I), indium arsenide (InAs), indium phosphide (InP), indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs), cadmium selenide sulfide (CdSeS), zinc sulfide (ZnS), silicon (Si), or some other semiconductor material … light absorption layer 30 may contain a mixture of nanomaterials with one or more different properties of shape, size, or composition …” in paragraphs 55, 58, and 59), a conductive polymer (e.g., “… matrix material may be a polymer matrix of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polystyrene, polyimides, or some other polymer to encapsulate a nanostructured spine! oxide and restrict the movement of individual particles or structures … light absorption layer 30 may comprise 65-99 wt %, preferably 70-95 wt %, more preferably 80-90 wt % nanomaterials, with the remaining composition comprising an inorganic or organic semiconductor matrix as mentioned previously, or a polymer matrix as described previously …” in paragraphs 53 and 55), and a one-dimensional or two-dimensional conductive nanomaterial (e.g., “… light absorption layer 30 may contain a mixture of nanomaterials with one or more different properties of shape, size, or composition …” in paragraph 59).
The method of Swelm et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… other materials …” such as the nanocomposite is formed from a mixed solution of the zero-dimensional nanoparticle and the one-dimensional or two-dimensional conductive nanomaterial at a weight ratio of 2-6:1. However, “… other materials …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… P3HT:PCBM:Bi2O3 photoconductors for 1:1:1, 1:1:2, 1:1:8, and 1:1:16 ratios …” in the Fig. 2 caption, “… increasing the NP loading from 1:1:1 to 1:1:16. This is suggestive of a potential limit in NP loading when designing NP sensitized organic−inorganic hybrid detectors, especially at higher thickness (>50 μm) …” in the “Impact of Nanoparticle Loading on X-ray Photocurrent Response” section, and “… Regioregular P3HT (Rieke) and PCBM (Solenne) were added to anhydrous chloroform at concentrations of 80 mg mL-1 each and left to stir overnight. Bi2O3 nanopowder with an average particle size of 38 nm was added to form P3HT:PCBM:Bi2O3 mixtures …” in the “MATERIALS AND METHODS” section of Imalka Jayawardena et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional material (e.g., comprising details such as “increasing the NP loading from 1:1:1 to 1:1:16” of “P3HT:PCBM:Bi2O3 photoconductors”, in order to achieve “NP sensitized organic−inorganic hybrid detectors, especially at higher thickness (>50 μm)”) for the unspecified material of Swelm et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional material (e.g., comprising details such as the nanocomposite is formed from a mixed solution of the zero-dimensional nanoparticle and the one-dimensional or two-dimensional conductive nanomaterial at a weight ratio of 2-6:1) as the unspecified material of Swelm et al.
In regard to claim 7 which is dependent on claim 1, Swelm et al. also disclose that the zero-dimensional nanoparticle has at least one shape selected from the group consisting of quantum dot, nanocrystal, nanoparticle, and nanosphere (e.g., “… light absorption layer 30 of the photodiode comprises nanomaterials such as quantum dots, quantum rods, and/or quantum wires … nanomaterials of the light absorption layer 30 comprise lead sulfide (PbS), lead selenide (PbSe), lead telluride (PbTe), cadmium selenide (CdSe), cadmium sulfide (CdS), and/or cadmium telluride (CdTe). In other embodiments the quantum dots, quantum rods, and/or quantum wires may comprise other materials such as cesium lead halide perovskites (CsPbX3, where X=Cl, Br, or I), indium arsenide (InAs), indium phosphide (InP), indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs), cadmium selenide sulfide (CdSeS), zinc sulfide (ZnS), silicon (Si), or some other semiconductor material … light absorption layer 30 may contain a mixture of nanomaterials with one or more different properties of shape, size, or composition …” in paragraphs 55, 58, and 59).
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 1, Swelm et al. also disclose that the zero-dimensional nanoparticle comprises an element of groups 2 to 5 having an effective atomic number (Z) of 29 or more (e.g., “… light absorption layer 30 of the photodiode comprises nanomaterials such as quantum dots, quantum rods, and/or quantum wires … nanomaterials of the light absorption layer 30 comprise lead sulfide (PbS), lead selenide (PbSe), lead telluride (PbTe), cadmium selenide (CdSe), cadmium sulfide (CdS), and/or cadmium telluride (CdTe). In other embodiments the quantum dots, quantum rods, and/or quantum wires may comprise other materials such as cesium lead halide perovskites (CsPbX3, where X=Cl, Br, or I), indium arsenide (InAs), indium phosphide (InP), indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs), cadmium selenide sulfide (CdSeS), zinc sulfide (ZnS), silicon (Si), or some other semiconductor material … light absorption layer 30 may contain a mixture of nanomaterials with one or more different properties of shape, size, or composition …” in paragraphs 55, 58, and 59).
In regard to claims 9 and 10 which are dependent on claim 8, Swelm et al. also disclose that the zero-dimensional nanoparticle is a ternary compound comprising a perovskite-based (ABX3) material (e.g., “… light absorption layer 30 of the photodiode comprises nanomaterials such as quantum dots, quantum rods, and/or quantum wires … nanomaterials of the light absorption layer 30 comprise lead sulfide (PbS), lead selenide (PbSe), lead telluride (PbTe), cadmium selenide (CdSe), cadmium sulfide (CdS), and/or cadmium telluride (CdTe). In other embodiments the quantum dots, quantum rods, and/or quantum wires may comprise other materials such as cesium lead halide perovskites (CsPbX3, where X=Cl, Br, or I), indium arsenide (InAs), indium phosphide (InP), indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs), cadmium selenide sulfide (CdSeS), zinc sulfide (ZnS), silicon (Si), or some other semiconductor material … light absorption layer 30 may contain a mixture of nanomaterials with one or more different properties of shape, size, or composition …” in paragraphs 55, 58, and 59).
In regard to claim 11 which is dependent on claim 8, Swelm et al. also disclose that the zero-dimensional nanoparticle comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of PbS, PbSe, PbTe, CdS, CdSe, CdTe, Cu2S, and MAPbI3 (e.g., “… light absorption layer 30 of the photodiode comprises nanomaterials such as quantum dots, quantum rods, and/or quantum wires … nanomaterials of the light absorption layer 30 comprise lead sulfide (PbS), lead selenide (PbSe), lead telluride (PbTe), cadmium selenide (CdSe), cadmium sulfide (CdS), and/or cadmium telluride (CdTe). In other embodiments the quantum dots, quantum rods, and/or quantum wires may comprise other materials such as cesium lead halide perovskites (CsPbX3, where X=Cl, Br, or I), indium arsenide (InAs), indium phosphide (InP), indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs), cadmium selenide sulfide (CdSeS), zinc sulfide (ZnS), silicon (Si), or some other semiconductor material … light absorption layer 30 may contain a mixture of nanomaterials with one or more different properties of shape, size, or composition …” in paragraphs 55, 58, and 59).
In regard to claim 12 which is dependent on claim 1, Swelm et al. also disclose that the conductive polymer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of polypyrrole, polythiophene, PEDOT:PSS (poly3,4-rthylene dioxythiophene-polystyrene sulfonate), polyaniline, pentacene, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyethyleneimine, poly 3-hexylthiophene, and phenyl-C61-butyric acid methyl ester (e.g., “… matrix material may be a polymer matrix of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polystyrene, polyimides, or some other polymer to encapsulate a nanostructured spine! oxide and restrict the movement of individual particles or structures … light absorption layer 30 may comprise 65-99 wt %, preferably 70-95 wt %, more preferably 80-90 wt % nanomaterials, with the remaining composition comprising an inorganic or organic semiconductor matrix as mentioned previously, or a polymer matrix as described previously …” in paragraphs 53 and 55).
In regard to claim 13 which is dependent on claim 1, Swelm et al. also disclose that the one-dimensional or two-dimensional conductive nanomaterial has at least one shape selected from the group consisting of nanorod, nanowire, nanotube, nanobelts, nanoribbon, and nanosheet (e.g., “… light absorption layer 30 may contain a mixture of nanomaterials with one or more different properties of shape, size, or composition …” in paragraph 59).
In regard to claim 18 which is dependent on claim 1, Swelm et al. also disclose that the semiconductor substrate comprises an inorganic semiconductor or organic semiconductor material (e.g., “… substrate layer 26 … substrate layer 26 is less than 100 wt% semiconductor, the composition may also comprise an organic semiconductor matrix such as polyvinylcarbazole (PVK), poly(3-hexylthiophene) (P3HT), PBBDTTT-CT, phthalocyanine complex, a porphyrin complex, a polythiophene (PT), a derivative of polythiophene, a polycarbazole, a derivative of polycarbazole, a poly(p-phenylene vinylene) (PPV), a PPV derivative, a polyfulorene (PF), a benzodithiophene (BDT)-based polymer, a PF derivative, a cyclopentadithiophene-based polymer, a P3DOT, P30T, PMeT, P3DDT, PDDTV, PQT, F8T2, PBTTT-C12, PFDDTBT, BisEH-PFDTBT, BisDMOPFDTBT, PCDTBT or combinations and mixtures thereof. In one embodiment, the semiconductor comprises silicon, germanium, indium gallium arsenide, lead (II) sulfide, indium phosphor, and/or mercury cadmium telluride. In other embodiments, the semiconductor may be a group IV semiconductor, such as silicon or germanium, and may be doped with aluminum, boron, phosphorous, or gallium. Alternatively, the semiconductor may be a group III-V semiconductor such as aluminum phosphide, aluminum arsenide, gallium arsenide, or gallium nitride and doped with beryllium, zinc, cadmium, silicon, or germanium …” in paragraphs 49 and 51).
In regard to claim 19, Swelm et al. disclose a method for manufacturing a radiation detection device, comprising:
(a) forming at least one active layer area on a semiconductor substrate (e.g., see “… substrate layer 26 … substrate layer 26 is less than 100 wt% semiconductor, the composition may also comprise an organic semiconductor matrix such as polyvinylcarbazole (PVK), poly(3-hexylthiophene) (P3HT), PBBDTTT-CT, phthalocyanine complex, a porphyrin complex, a polythiophene (PT), a derivative of polythiophene, a polycarbazole, a derivative of polycarbazole, a poly(p-phenylene vinylene) (PPV), a PPV derivative, a polyfulorene (PF), a benzodithiophene (BDT)-based polymer, a PF derivative, a cyclopentadithiophene-based polymer, a P3DOT, P30T, PMeT, P3DDT, PDDTV, PQT, F8T2, PBTTT-C12, PFDDTBT, BisEH-PFDTBT, BisDMOPFDTBT, PCDTBT or combinations and mixtures thereof. In one embodiment, the semiconductor comprises silicon, germanium, indium gallium arsenide, lead (II) sulfide, indium phosphor, and/or mercury cadmium telluride. In other embodiments, the semiconductor may be a group IV semiconductor, such as silicon or germanium, and may be doped with aluminum, boron, phosphorous, or gallium. Alternatively, the semiconductor may be a group III-V semiconductor such as aluminum phosphide, aluminum arsenide, gallium arsenide, or gallium nitride and doped with beryllium, zinc, cadmium, silicon, or germanium …” in Fig. 2 and paragraphs 49 and 51),;
(b) filling the active layer area with a nanocomposite comprising a zero-dimensional nanoparticle (e.g., “… light absorption layer 30 of the photodiode comprises nanomaterials such as quantum dots, quantum rods, and/or quantum wires … nanomaterials of the light absorption layer 30 comprise lead sulfide (PbS), lead selenide (PbSe), lead telluride (PbTe), cadmium selenide (CdSe), cadmium sulfide (CdS), and/or cadmium telluride (CdTe). In other embodiments the quantum dots, quantum rods, and/or quantum wires may comprise other materials such as cesium lead halide perovskites (CsPbX3, where X=Cl, Br, or I), indium arsenide (InAs), indium phosphide (InP), indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs), cadmium selenide sulfide (CdSeS), zinc sulfide (ZnS), silicon (Si), or some other semiconductor material … light absorption layer 30 may contain a mixture of nanomaterials with one or more different properties of shape, size, or composition …” in paragraphs 55, 58, and 59), a conductive polymer (e.g., “… matrix material may be a polymer matrix of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polystyrene, polyimides, or some other polymer to encapsulate a nanostructured spine! oxide and restrict the movement of individual particles or structures … light absorption layer 30 may comprise 65-99 wt %, preferably 70-95 wt %, more preferably 80-90 wt % nanomaterials, with the remaining composition comprising an inorganic or organic semiconductor matrix as mentioned previously, or a polymer matrix as described previously …” in paragraphs 53 and 55), and a one-dimensional or two-dimensional conductive nanomaterial (e.g., “… light absorption layer 30 may contain a mixture of nanomaterials with one or more different properties of shape, size, or composition …” in paragraph 59); and
(c) forming at least one bottom electrode and at least one top electrode on each of lower and upper portions of the semiconductor substrate in which the active layer area is filled with the nanocomposite (e.g., “… photodiode comprising an ohmic contact 24 … and a top electrode 32 … ionizing radiation detector with the ability to detect X-rays or gamma rays …” in paragraphs 49 and 91).
The method of Swelm et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… other materials …” such as the nanocomposite is formed from a mixed solution of the zero-dimensional nanoparticle and the one-dimensional or two-dimensional conductive nanomaterial at a weight ratio of 2-6:1. However, “… other materials …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… P3HT:PCBM:Bi2O3 photoconductors for 1:1:1, 1:1:2, 1:1:8, and 1:1:16 ratios …” in the Fig. 2 caption, “… increasing the NP loading from 1:1:1 to 1:1:16. This is suggestive of a potential limit in NP loading when designing NP sensitized organic−inorganic hybrid detectors, especially at higher thickness (>50 μm) …” in the “Impact of Nanoparticle Loading on X-ray Photocurrent Response” section, and “… Regioregular P3HT (Rieke) and PCBM (Solenne) were added to anhydrous chloroform at concentrations of 80 mg mL-1 each and left to stir overnight. Bi2O3 nanopowder with an average particle size of 38 nm was added to form P3HT:PCBM:Bi2O3 mixtures …” in the “MATERIALS AND METHODS” section of Imalka Jayawardena et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional material (e.g., comprising details such as “increasing the NP loading from 1:1:1 to 1:1:16” of “P3HT:PCBM:Bi2O3 photoconductors”, in order to achieve “NP sensitized organic−inorganic hybrid detectors, especially at higher thickness (>50 μm)”) for the unspecified material of Swelm et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional material (e.g., comprising details such as the nanocomposite is formed from a mixed solution of the zero-dimensional nanoparticle and the one-dimensional or two-dimensional conductive nanomaterial at a weight ratio of 2-6:1) as the unspecified material of Swelm et al.
In regard to claim 22 which is dependent on claim 19, the method of Swelm et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… other materials …” such as the nanocomposite is formed from a mixed solution of the zero-dimensional nanoparticle, the one-dimensional or two-dimensional conductive nanomaterial, and the conductive polymer at a weight ratio of 2-6:1:1. However, “… other materials …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… P3HT:PCBM:Bi2O3 photoconductors for 1:1:1, 1:1:2, 1:1:8, and 1:1:16 ratios …” in the Fig. 2 caption, “… increasing the NP loading from 1:1:1 to 1:1:16. This is suggestive of a potential limit in NP loading when designing NP sensitized organic−inorganic hybrid detectors, especially at higher thickness (>50 μm) …” in the “Impact of Nanoparticle Loading on X-ray Photocurrent Response” section, and “… Regioregular P3HT (Rieke) and PCBM (Solenne) were added to anhydrous chloroform at concentrations of 80 mg mL-1 each and left to stir overnight. Bi2O3 nanopowder with an average particle size of 38 nm was added to form P3HT:PCBM:Bi2O3 mixtures …” in the “MATERIALS AND METHODS” section of Imalka Jayawardena et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional material (e.g., comprising details such as “increasing the NP loading from 1:1:1 to 1:1:16” of “P3HT:PCBM:Bi2O3 photoconductors”, in order to achieve “NP sensitized organic−inorganic hybrid detectors, especially at higher thickness (>50 μm)”) for the unspecified material of Swelm et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional material (e.g., comprising details such as the nanocomposite is formed from a mixed solution of the zero-dimensional nanoparticle, the one-dimensional or two-dimensional conductive nanomaterial, and the conductive polymer at a weight ratio of 2-6:1:1) as the unspecified material of Swelm et al.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, 17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swelm et al. in view of Imalka Jayawardena et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Simon et al. (US 2017/0045630).
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1, while Swelm et al. also disclose a distance between the bottom and top electrodes (e.g., see Fig. 2, wherein a direction along said distance can be labeled as a length direction, an orthogonal direction can be labeled as a width direction, and length/width can be labeled as an aspect ratio), the device of Swelm et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… photodetector array is envisioned …” such as ≥1 aspect ratio of at least one active layer area. However, “… photodetector array …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… typically has a pillar-like shape, for example the shape of a column or cylinder with a circular, elliptical, polygonal or arbitrary cross section … radiation detector and the manufacturing method have the advantage that they allow for the provision of cost-effective radiation detectors with high sensitivity. This is because the photosensitive pillars of the detector can be oriented parallel to the direction of radiation incidence such that the conversion material can be provided with a sufficient thickness (in radiation direction) for completely converting incident primary photons while at the same time the generated secondary photons can reach the photosensitive pillar on a short route (perpendicular to the radiation direction), thus minimizing signal losses… geometry and dimensions of the sensitive pillars may be quite arbitrary … ratio between the aforementioned height and diameter of the photosensitive pillars is called its "aspect ratio". Independent of the aforementioned figures, this aspect ratio may preferably be larger than about 2, larger than about 3, larger than about 5, or most preferably larger than about 10 … subtractive techniques such as Reactive Ion Etching (RIE), Deep Reactive Ion Etching (DRIE) [e.g. 'Bosch process'], Electrochemical Etching (EE), wet etching and/or laser structuring. Alternatively at least one of the photosensitive pillars and/or an array of photosensitive pillars may be manufactured by starting with a bulk layer of conversion material (e.g. matrix material containing conversion material particles). After creating holes in this layer, e.g. by one of the aforementioned subtractive techniques such as laser structuring, they can be filled with photosensitive material(s) in a 2nd step to create the photosensitive pillars …” in paragraphs 10, 16, 22, 23, and 27 of Simon et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional photodetector array (e.g., comprising details such as “array of photosensitive pillars” and “aspect ratio may preferably be larger than about 2”, in order to achieve “advantage that they allow for the provision of cost-effective radiation detectors with high sensitivity”) for the unspecified photodetector array of Swelm et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional photodetector array (e.g., comprising details such as the at least one active layer area is formed so that an aspect ratio (length/width) is 1 or more when a distance between the bottom electrode and the top electrode is taken as a length direction, and a direction orthogonal to the length direction is taken as a width direction) as the unspecified photodetector array of Swelm et al.
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 1, the device of Swelm et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… photodetector array is envisioned …” such as the radiation detection device comprises at least two active layer areas having the same shape or different shapes. However, “… photodetector array …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… typically has a pillar-like shape, for example the shape of a column or cylinder with a circular, elliptical, polygonal or arbitrary cross section … radiation detector and the manufacturing method have the advantage that they allow for the provision of cost-effective radiation detectors with high sensitivity. This is because the photosensitive pillars of the detector can be oriented parallel to the direction of radiation incidence such that the conversion material can be provided with a sufficient thickness (in radiation direction) for completely converting incident primary photons while at the same time the generated secondary photons can reach the photosensitive pillar on a short route (perpendicular to the radiation direction), thus minimizing signal losses… geometry and dimensions of the sensitive pillars may be quite arbitrary … ratio between the aforementioned height and diameter of the photosensitive pillars is called its "aspect ratio". Independent of the aforementioned figures, this aspect ratio may preferably be larger than about 2, larger than about 3, larger than about 5, or most preferably larger than about 10 … subtractive techniques such as Reactive Ion Etching (RIE), Deep Reactive Ion Etching (DRIE) [e.g. 'Bosch process'], Electrochemical Etching (EE), wet etching and/or laser structuring. Alternatively at least one of the photosensitive pillars and/or an array of photosensitive pillars may be manufactured by starting with a bulk layer of conversion material (e.g. matrix material containing conversion material particles). After creating holes in this layer, e.g. by one of the aforementioned subtractive techniques such as laser structuring, they can be filled with photosensitive material(s) in a 2nd step to create the photosensitive pillars …” in paragraphs 10, 16, 22, 23, and 27 of Simon et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional photodetector array (e.g., comprising details such as “array of photosensitive pillars” and “circular, elliptical, polygonal or arbitrary cross section”, in order to achieve “advantage that they allow for the provision of cost-effective radiation detectors with high sensitivity”) for the unspecified photodetector array of Swelm et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional photodetector array (e.g., comprising details such as the radiation detection device comprises at least two active layer areas having the same shape; or wherein the radiation detection device includes at least two active layer areas having different shapes) as the unspecified photodetector array of Swelm et al.
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1, Swelm et al. also disclose that the radiation detection device has a structure patterned by the at least one active layer area. the device of Swelm et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… photodetector array is envisioned …” such as the radiation detection device comprises at least two active layer areas having the same shape or different shapes. However, “… photodetector array …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… typically has a pillar-like shape, for example the shape of a column or cylinder with a circular, elliptical, polygonal or arbitrary cross section … radiation detector and the manufacturing method have the advantage that they allow for the provision of cost-effective radiation detectors with high sensitivity. This is because the photosensitive pillars of the detector can be oriented parallel to the direction of radiation incidence such that the conversion material can be provided with a sufficient thickness (in radiation direction) for completely converting incident primary photons while at the same time the generated secondary photons can reach the photosensitive pillar on a short route (perpendicular to the radiation direction), thus minimizing signal losses… geometry and dimensions of the sensitive pillars may be quite arbitrary … ratio between the aforementioned height and diameter of the photosensitive pillars is called its "aspect ratio". Independent of the aforementioned figures, this aspect ratio may preferably be larger than about 2, larger than about 3, larger than about 5, or most preferably larger than about 10 … subtractive techniques such as Reactive Ion Etching (RIE), Deep Reactive Ion Etching (DRIE) [e.g. 'Bosch process'], Electrochemical Etching (EE), wet etching and/or laser structuring. Alternatively at least one of the photosensitive pillars and/or an array of photosensitive pillars may be manufactured by starting with a bulk layer of conversion material (e.g. matrix material containing conversion material particles). After creating holes in this layer, e.g. by one of the aforementioned subtractive techniques such as laser structuring, they can be filled with photosensitive material(s) in a 2nd step to create the photosensitive pillars …” in paragraphs 10, 16, 22, 23, and 27 of Simon et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional photodetector array (e.g., comprising details such as “array of photosensitive pillars” and “circular, elliptical, polygonal or arbitrary cross section”, in order to achieve “advantage that they allow for the provision of cost-effective radiation detectors with high sensitivity”) for the unspecified photodetector array of Swelm et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional photodetector array (e.g., comprising details such as the radiation detection device comprises at least two active layer areas having the same shape; or wherein the radiation detection device includes at least two active layer areas having different shapes) as the unspecified photodetector array of Swelm et al.
In regard to claim 17 which is dependent on claim 1, process limitations cannot serve to impart patentability to structures. In re Dike, 157 USPQ 581, 585 (CCPA 1968). Methods of making a claimed product are immaterial in a product claim in view of In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 173 USPQ 685 (CCPA 1972). It is axiomatic that the additional presence of process limitations, no matter how detailed, cannot impart patentability to a product. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 162 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1969); In re Johnson, 394 F.2d 591, 157 USPQ 620 (CCPA 1968); and In re Stephen, 345 F.2d 1020, 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965). Further, the device of Swelm et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… photodetector array is envisioned …” such as the at least one active layer area is formed by one or more of photolithography, nanoimprinting lithography, nanosphere lithography, multi-beam lithography, anodic aluminum oxide (AAO), template, dry etching, wet etching, and metal-assisted chemical etching. However, “… photodetector array …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… typically has a pillar-like shape, for example the shape of a column or cylinder with a circular, elliptical, polygonal or arbitrary cross section … radiation detector and the manufacturing method have the advantage that they allow for the provision of cost-effective radiation detectors with high sensitivity. This is because the photosensitive pillars of the detector can be oriented parallel to the direction of radiation incidence such that the conversion material can be provided with a sufficient thickness (in radiation direction) for completely converting incident primary photons while at the same time the generated secondary photons can reach the photosensitive pillar on a short route (perpendicular to the radiation direction), thus minimizing signal losses… geometry and dimensions of the sensitive pillars may be quite arbitrary … ratio between the aforementioned height and diameter of the photosensitive pillars is called its "aspect ratio". Independent of the aforementioned figures, this aspect ratio may preferably be larger than about 2, larger than about 3, larger than about 5, or most preferably larger than about 10 … subtractive techniques such as Reactive Ion Etching (RIE), Deep Reactive Ion Etching (DRIE) [e.g. 'Bosch process'], Electrochemical Etching (EE), wet etching and/or laser structuring. Alternatively at least one of the photosensitive pillars and/or an array of photosensitive pillars may be manufactured by starting with a bulk layer of conversion material (e.g. matrix material containing conversion material particles). After creating holes in this layer, e.g. by one of the aforementioned subtractive techniques such as laser structuring, they can be filled with photosensitive material(s) in a 2nd step to create the photosensitive pillars …” in paragraphs 10, 16, 22, 23, and 27 of Simon et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional photodetector array (e.g., comprising details such as “array of photosensitive pillars” formed by “wet etching”, in order to achieve “advantage that they allow for the provision of cost-effective radiation detectors with high sensitivity”) for the unspecified photodetector array of Swelm et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional photodetector array (e.g., comprising details such as the at least one active layer area is formed by one or more of photolithography, nanoimprinting lithography, nanosphere lithography, multi-beam lithography, anodic aluminum oxide (AAO), template, dry etching, wet etching, and metal-assisted chemical etching) as the unspecified photodetector array of Swelm et al.
In regard to claim 21 which is dependent on claim 19, the method of Swelm et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… photodetector array is envisioned …” such as the forming of the at least one active layer area comprises forming a pattern by the at least one active layer area. However, “… photodetector array …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… typically has a pillar-like shape, for example the shape of a column or cylinder with a circular, elliptical, polygonal or arbitrary cross section … radiation detector and the manufacturing method have the advantage that they allow for the provision of cost-effective radiation detectors with high sensitivity. This is because the photosensitive pillars of the detector can be oriented parallel to the direction of radiation incidence such that the conversion material can be provided with a sufficient thickness (in radiation direction) for completely converting incident primary photons while at the same time the generated secondary photons can reach the photosensitive pillar on a short route (perpendicular to the radiation direction), thus minimizing signal losses… geometry and dimensions of the sensitive pillars may be quite arbitrary … ratio between the aforementioned height and diameter of the photosensitive pillars is called its "aspect ratio". Independent of the aforementioned figures, this aspect ratio may preferably be larger than about 2, larger than about 3, larger than about 5, or most preferably larger than about 10 … subtractive techniques such as Reactive Ion Etching (RIE), Deep Reactive Ion Etching (DRIE) [e.g. 'Bosch process'], Electrochemical Etching (EE), wet etching and/or laser structuring. Alternatively at least one of the photosensitive pillars and/or an array of photosensitive pillars may be manufactured by starting with a bulk layer of conversion material (e.g. matrix material containing conversion material particles). After creating holes in this layer, e.g. by one of the aforementioned subtractive techniques such as laser structuring, they can be filled with photosensitive material(s) in a 2nd step to create the photosensitive pillars …” in paragraphs 10, 16, 22, 23, and 27 of Simon et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional photodetector array (e.g., comprising details such as “array of photosensitive pillars” and “circular, elliptical, polygonal or arbitrary cross section”, in order to achieve “advantage that they allow for the provision of cost-effective radiation detectors with high sensitivity”) for the unspecified photodetector array of Swelm et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional photodetector array (e.g., comprising details such as the forming of the at least one active layer area comprises forming a pattern by the at least one active layer area) as the unspecified photodetector array of Swelm et al.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swelm et al. in view of Imalka Jayawardena et al. and Simon et al. as applied to claim(s) 2 above, and further in view of Okhonin et al. (US 2020/0373346).
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 2, the device of Swelm et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… photodetector array is envisioned …” such as the width is 50 nm to 500 nm and the length is 1000 nm to 10 μm. However, “… photodetector array …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… desire for sensor arrays to have ever smaller pixels, so that higher resolution can be achieved without making the sensor chip area larger, which also increases power consumption … With a 10 micrometer pixel size, a pixel is essentially a planar structure with a width several times greater than its depth … with a 1 micrometer pixel size, the pixel is column-like with a width smaller than its depth, i.e. an aspect ratio significantly less than one … pixel-forming columns 5 may have an aspect ratio of less than unity as defined by the depth of the light absorbing region 15 being greater than the lateral separation between adjacent pixels, i.e. the pixel pitch Px in the xz-plane (or Py in the yz-plane ). Generally, the thickness of the light absorbing region 15 will be dictated by the physics, i.e. absorption length of photons of the desired wavelength range in the semiconductor material used for the light absorbing region. For detection in the visible range with silicon as the semiconductor material, the thickness of the light absorption region will be perhaps 2-5 micrometers. The present design is particularly suited to small pitch size, and hence small aspect ratios of perhaps 0.1 to 0.3 (or 0.4) …” in paragraphs 8 and 53 of Okhonin et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional photodetector array (e.g., comprising details such as “2-5 micrometers” “thickness” and “small pitch size, and hence small aspect ratios of perhaps 0.1 to 0.3 (or 0.4)”, in order to achieve a “desired wavelength range”) for the unspecified photodetector array of Swelm et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. It should be noted that 2 μm thickness (or length) multiplied by a 0.1 aspect ratio (which can also be labeled as 10 aspect ratio for dividing the length) equals 0.2 μm (or 200 nm) pitch size (or width). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional photodetector array (e.g., comprising details such as the width of the at least one active layer area is 50 nm to 500 nm, and the length of the at least one active layer area is 1000 nm to 10 μm) as the unspecified photodetector array of Swelm et al.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swelm et al. in view of Imalka Jayawardena et al. as applied to claim(s) 13 above, and further in view of Zeng et al. (Multilayered PdSe2/Perovskite Schottky Junction for fast, self-powered, polarization-sensitive, broadband photodetectors, and image sensor application, Advanced Science Vol. 6, no 19, 1901134 (First published: August 2019), 9 pages and Supporting Information, 8 pages).
In regard to claims 14 and 15 which are dependent on claim 13, the device of Swelm et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… other materials …” such as the one-dimensional or two-dimensional conductive nanomaterial comprises transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD) that includes at least one selected from the group consisting of TiS2, NiSe2, PdS2, PtS2, PtSe2, MoS2, MoSe2, WS2, and WSe2. However, “… other materials …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… 2D layered transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) materials have shown great potential for electronics and optoelectronics applications due to their unique thickness-dependent properties, high carrier mobility, and good air stability.[25–27] Owing to these outstanding properties, 2D layered TMDs (e.g., MoS2,[16] WS2,[28] and PtSe2[29]) have been successfully integrated with perovskite to achieve high-performance photodetectors …” in pg. 2 of Zeng et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional material (e.g., comprising details such as “2D layered TMDs (e.g., MoS2,[16] WS2,[28] and PtSe2[29])”, in order to “achieve high-performance photodetectors”) for the unspecified material of Swelm et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional material (e.g., comprising details such as the one-dimensional or two-dimensional conductive nanomaterial comprises transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD) that includes at least one selected from the group consisting of TiS2, NiSe2, PdS2, PtS2, PtSe2, MoS2, MoSe2, WS2, and WSe2) as the unspecified material of Swelm et al.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swelm et al. in view of Imalka Jayawardena et al. as applied to claim(s) 13 above, and further in view of Saranin et al. (Transition metal carbides (MXenes) for efficient NiO-based inverted perovskite solar cells, Nano Energy Vol. 82, 105771 (Available online January 2021), 12 pages and Supporting Information, 13 pages).
In regard to claims 14 and 16 which are dependent on claim 13, Swelm et al. also disclose that. the device of Swelm et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… other materials …” such as the one-dimensional or two-dimensional conductive nanomaterial comprises MXene that includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Ti2C, (Ti0.5,Nb0.5)2C, V2C, Nb2C, Mo2C Mo2N, (Ti0.5, Nb0.5)2C, Ti2N, W1.33C, Nb1.33C, Mo1.33C, Mo1.33Y0.67C, Ti3C2, Ti3CN, Zr3C2, Hf3C2, Ti4N3, Nb4C3, Ta4C3, V4C3, (Mo,V)4C3, Mo4VC4, Mo2TiC2, Cr2TiC2, Mo2ScC2, and Mo2Ti2C3. However, “… other materials …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… Ti3C2 MXenes can be used to tune the work-function (WF) of both perovskite and TiO2 layers of a mesoscopic n-i-p cell [22]. MXenes are single or multilayer 2D structures with the general formula of Mn+1XnTx (n = 1, 2, 3), where M represents an early transition metal, X is a carbon and/or nitrogen atom and T are surface functionalization groups (–F, –O, –OH). These groups strongly affect the electrostatic potential near the surfaces and induce a dramatic effect on the electronic structure of MXenes, shifting the WF in a wide range (from 1.6 eV for OH termination to 6.25 eV for O termination) [38]. More importantly, MXenes can change the WF of perovskite absorber or of CTLs when used as dopant in their precursor solutions, and this approach was exploited to design efficient n-i-p PSCs with PCE exceeding 20% …” in pg. 2 of Saranin et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional material (e.g., comprising details such as “Ti3C2 MXenes”, in order to “change the WF of perovskite absorber”) for the unspecified material of Swelm et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional material (e.g., comprising details such as the one-dimensional or two-dimensional conductive nanomaterial comprises MXene that includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Ti2C, (Ti0.5,Nb0.5)2C, V2C, Nb2C, Mo2C Mo2N, (Ti0.5, Nb0.5)2C, Ti2N, W1.33C, Nb1.33C, Mo1.33C, Mo1.33Y0.67C, Ti3C2, Ti3CN, Zr3C2, Hf3C2, Ti4N3, Nb4C3, Ta4C3, V4C3, (Mo,V)4C3, Mo4VC4, Mo2TiC2, Cr2TiC2, Mo2ScC2, and Mo2Ti2C3) as the unspecified material of Swelm et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but some are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant's remaining arguments filed 20 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended independent claim 1 is structurally distinct from Swelm et al. because Swelm et al.‘s light absorption layer 30 is not located inside the semiconductor substrate. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., wherein an upper end portion of the semiconductor substrate includes at least two active layer areas) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). While including at least two active layer areas is not required by amended independent claim 1, it should be noted that including at least two active layer areas is claimed in at least one dependent claim.
Applicant argues that Swelm et al.‘s teachings are silent as to “a one-dimensional or two-dimensional conductive nanomaterial” recited in amended independent claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Swelm et al. teach a current from a conductive material (e.g., see “… functional material is described below for the photoactive layer in a photodiode. A photodiode includes a photoactive layer, metal electrodes, and an encapsulation. The photoactive layer absorbs the light and converts the light energy to current or voltage …” in paragraph 4).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found in the references themselves. Initially, Swelm et al.‘s paragraph 59 cited by applicant teach exemplary embodiments (e.g., see “… In one embodiment the light absorption layer 30 may contain a mixture of nanomaterials …” and “… For instance, a light absorption layer 30 may comprise …” in paragraph 59). Thus even Swelm et al.‘s paragraph 59 cited by applicant teach or suggest other mixture of nanomaterials. Further, “… other materials …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… P3HT:PCBM:Bi2O3 photoconductors for 1:1:1, 1:1:2, 1:1:8, and 1:1:16 ratios …” in the Fig. 2 caption, “… increasing the NP loading from 1:1:1 to 1:1:16. This is suggestive of a potential limit in NP loading when designing NP sensitized organic−inorganic hybrid detectors, especially at higher thickness (>50 μm) …” in the “Impact of Nanoparticle Loading on X-ray Photocurrent Response” section, and “… Regioregular P3HT (Rieke) and PCBM (Solenne) were added to anhydrous chloroform at concentrations of 80 mg mL-1 each and left to stir overnight. Bi2O3 nanopowder with an average particle size of 38 nm was added to form P3HT:PCBM:Bi2O3 mixtures …” in the “MATERIALS AND METHODS” section of Imalka Jayawardena et al.). One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional material (e.g., comprising details such as “increasing the NP loading from 1:1:1 to 1:1:16” of “P3HT:PCBM:Bi2O3 photoconductors”, in order to achieve “NP sensitized organic−inorganic hybrid detectors, especially at higher thickness (>50 μm)”) for the unspecified material of Swelm et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional material (e.g., comprising details such as the nanocomposite is formed from a mixed solution of the zero-dimensional nanoparticle and the one-dimensional or two-dimensional conductive nanomaterial at a weight ratio of 2-6:1) as the unspecified material of Swelm et al. Therefore the combination of the cited prior art teaches or suggests all limitations as arranged in the claims.
Applicant argues that claims 1-4, 6-18, 21, and 22 depend from either claim 1 or 19, recite additional features and distinguish over the cited prior art for at least the same reasons as those discussed with respect to claim 1, and/or claim 19, and/or for the additionally recited features. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5,132,541 teaches a detector.
US 2004/0118448 teaches a photovoltaic device.
US 2005/0126628 teaches a photovoltaic device.
US 2007/0272872 teaches a detector.
US 2014/0054442 teaches a detector.
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 Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884