DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to Applicant’s election filed on 06/29/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-19.
Election/Restriction
The Applicant’s response on 06/29/2026 in reply to the restriction/election requirements mailed on 06/12/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 5 (Fig. 15), drawn to claims 1-4, and 6-19, is acknowledged. Examiner agrees. Claim 5 was withdrawn by the Applicant.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered.
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
The indicated elements in the downward drawing (annotated fig. 15 from the instant application) are not designated.
PNG
media_image1.png
572
1104
media_image1.png
Greyscale
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification Objection
The specification has been checked to the extend necessary to determine the presence of possible minor errors. However, the Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification.
The specification does not contain the indications for the elements which are not designated in the annotated fig. 15 of the instant application.
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 1-4, 6-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 20160143602).
Regarding claim 1, Kim shows (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) all aspects of a photodetector 1 (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0025]) comprising:
A first semiconductor layer 100 comprising germanium (Ge) (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0026])
A conductive layer 200 that, in conjunction with the first semiconductor layer 100, forms a Schottky junction structure (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0129])
A tunneling barrier layer 110 positioned between the first semiconductor layer 100 and the conductive layer 200 and configured to prevent or reduce dark current between the first semiconductor layer 100 and the conductive layer 200 (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0040]) (also see MPEP 2012.01, and MPEP 2114.I/2114.II)
Regarding claim 2, Kim shows (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) that the first semiconductor layer comprises intrinsic-Ge, epitaxially grown Ge (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0040]), or GexSn1-x, and x satisfies 0<x<1.
PNG
media_image2.png
669
1181
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Kim shows (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) that the photodetector 1 comprises:
A semiconductor substrate 100 (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0026])
wherein:
The first semiconductor layer 100 is formed on the semiconductor substrate 100 (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0026])
Regarding claim 4, Kim shows (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) that:
A semiconductor substrate 100 doped with one of a p type and an n type (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0026])
A second semiconductor layer 100 formed on the semiconductor substrate 100 and doped with another one of the p type and the n type (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0026])
wherein:
The first semiconductor layer 100 is formed on the second semiconductor layer 100 (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0026])
The first semiconductor layer 100 is doped with one of a p-type and an n-type (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0026])
Regarding claim 6, Kim shows (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) that the conductive layer 200 comprises a first conductive layer 200 that, in conjunction with the first semiconductor layer 100, forms the Schottky junction structure (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0129]).
Regarding claim 7, Kim shows (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) that a second conductive layer 200 positioned on the first conductive layer 200 and being transparent (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0025]).
Regarding claim 8, Kim shows (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) that:
The first conductive layer 200 comprises a metal, an alloy, a metal oxide, a metal nitride, or a silicide (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0028])
The second conductive layer 200 comprises indium tin oxide (ITO), indium tungsten oxide (IWO), indium zinc oxide (IZO), gallium doped zinc oxide (GZO), gallium indium zinc oxide (GIZO), or aluminum zinc oxide (AZO) (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0028])
Regarding claim 9, Kim shows (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) that a work function of the first conductive layer 200 is set such that a Schottky barrier height of the Schottky junction structure has a lower value than that of a junction structure of the second conductive layer 200 and the semiconductor layer 100 (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0074]) (also see MPEP 2012.01, and MPEP 2114.I/2114.II).
Regarding claim 10, Kim shows (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) that the tunneling barrier layer 110 increases a thickness of a Schottky barrier formed between the conductive layer 200 and the first semiconductor layer 100.
Regarding claim 14, Kim shows (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) that a thickness of the tunneling barrier layer 110 is 30 nm or less (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0039]).
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 11-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim in view of Wann (US 2014/0183645).
Regarding claim 11, Kim shows (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) most aspects of the instant invention including a photodetector 1 (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0025]) comprising a tunneling barrier layer 110.
However, Kim fails (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) to show that a difference between a conduction band energy level of the tunneling barrier layer 110 and electron affinity of the first semiconductor layer 100 is 0.5 eV or less. Kim is also silent about the difference between a conduction band energy level of the tunneling barrier layer 110 and electron affinity of the first semiconductor layer 100. Wann, in a similar device to Kim, shows (see, e.g., Wann: figs. 2 and 5) how to increase electron current in fig. 2 of Kim for a given oxide thickness, (see, e.g., Wann: instead of SiO2, Wann uses TiO2). Also, Wann shows (see, e.g., Wann: par. [0022]) that "Referring now to fig. 2, a diagram 44 is provided to illustrate that titanium dioxide (TiO2) is an effective interfacial layer for Schottky barrier height reduction for materials with an electron affinity of about four (4) electron Volts (eV). Furthermore, Wann shows (see, e.g., Wann: diagram 44) that the conduction band 46 of the silicon (Si) is similar to that of the titanium dioxide (TiO2) and the aluminum (Al) contact. Therefore, only a small amount of energy is needed for conduction to occur when the titanium dioxide (TiO2) is disposed between silicon (Si) and an aluminum (Al) contact”. Thus, Wann shows (see, e.g., Wann: figs. 2 and 5) that difference between a conduction band energy level of the tunneling barrier layer and electron affinity of the first semiconductor layer is 0.5 eV or less.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art modify Kim to include a difference between a conduction energy level of the tunneling barrier and an electron affinity of the semiconductor layer of the device of Wann in order to increase the electron current of Kim for a given oxide thickness.
Furthermore, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of difference between a conduction energy level of the tunneling barrier and an electron affinity of the semiconductor layer, and differences in energy will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the energy differences, and Wann have identified (see, e.g., Wann: par. [0022]) such energy differences as result-effective variables subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have these energy differences to be different in the device of Kim in view of Wann
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed energy differences or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 12, Kim shows (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) most aspects of the instant invention including a photodetector 1 (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0025]) comprising a tunneling barrier layer 110.
However, Kim fails (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) to show that bandgap energy of the tunneling barrier layer 110 is greater than bandgap energy of the first semiconductor layer 100. Kim is also silent about the fact that the bandgap energy of the tunneling barrier layer 110 is greater than bandgap energy of the first semiconductor layer 100. Wann, in a similar device to Kim, shows (see, e.g., Wann: fig. 5) that bandgap energy of the tunneling barrier layer (from TiO2) is greater than bandgap energy of the first semiconductor layer Si. Also, Wann shows (see, e.g., Wann: par. [0022]) that "Referring now to fig. 2, a diagram 44 is provided to illustrate that titanium dioxide (TiO2) is an effective interfacial layer for Schottky barrier height reduction for materials with an electron affinity of about four (4) electron Volts (eV). Furthermore, Wann shows (see, e.g., Wann: diagram 44) that the conduction band 46 of the silicon (Si) is similar to that of the titanium dioxide (TiO2) and the aluminum (Al) contact. Therefore, only a small amount of energy is needed for conduction to occur when the titanium dioxide (TiO2) is disposed between silicon (Si) and an aluminum (Al) contact”. Thus, Wann shows (see, e.g., Wann: fig. 5) that the bandgap energy of the tunneling barrier layer is greater than bandgap energy of the first semiconductor layer.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art modify Kim to include a bandgap energy of the tunneling barrier layer that is greater than bandgap energy of the first semiconductor layer of the device of Wann in order to increase the electron current of Kim for a given oxide thickness.
Regarding claim 13, Kim shows (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) most aspects of the instant invention including a photodetector 1 (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0025]) comprising a tunneling barrier layer 110.
However, Kim fails (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) to show that bandgap energy of the tunneling barrier layer 110 is 2 eV or greater. Kim is also silent about the fact bandgap energy of the tunneling barrier 110 layer is 2 eV or greater. Wann, in a similar device to Kim, shows (see, e.g., Wann: fig. 5) that bandgap energy of the tunneling barrier layer (from TiO2) is greater than bandgap energy of the first semiconductor layer Si. Also, Wann shows (see, e.g., Wann: par. [0022]) that "Referring now to fig. 2, a diagram 44 is provided to illustrate that titanium dioxide (TiO2) is an effective interfacial layer for Schottky barrier height reduction for materials with an electron affinity of about four (4) electron Volts (eV). Furthermore, Wann shows (see, e.g., Wann: diagram 44) that the conduction band 46 of the silicon (Si) is similar to that of the titanium dioxide (TiO2) and the aluminum (Al) contact. Therefore, only a small amount of energy is needed for conduction to occur when the titanium dioxide (TiO2) is disposed between silicon (Si) and an aluminum (Al) contact”. Thus, Wann shows (see, e.g., Wann: fig. 5) that the bandgap energy of the tunneling barrier layer is 2 eV or greater.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art modify Kim to include a bandgap energy of the tunneling barrier layer that is 2 eV or greater of the device of Wann in order to increase the electron current of Kim for a given oxide thickness.
Furthermore, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of bandgap energy, and differences in the bandgap energy will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 29) of the energy differences, and Wann have identified (see, e.g., Wann: par. [0022]) such the bandgap energy as result-effective variables subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have these the bandgap energy differences to be different in the device of Kim in view of Wann.
Regarding claim 15, Kim shows (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) most aspects of the instant invention including a photodetector 1 (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0025]) comprising a tunneling barrier layer 110.
However, Kim fails (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) to show that the tunneling barrier layer 110 comprises a metal oxide. Kim shows (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) that the tunneling barrier layer 110 comprises a semiconductor oxide (germanium oxide) (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0038]).
Wann, in a similar device to Kim, also teaches (see, e.g., Wann: figs. 2 and 5) that the tunneling barrier layer 110 comprises a metal oxide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the semiconductor oxide of Kim or the metal oxide of Wann because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as tunneling barrier layers in semiconductor devices, as taught by Kim and by Wann, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 16, Kim in view of Wann shows (see, e.g., Wann: figs. 2 and 5) that the metal oxide comprises titanum dioxide (TiO2), tin dioxide (SnO2), zinc oxide (ZnO), tungsten trioxide (WO3), niobium pentoxide (Nb2O5), barium tin trioxide (BaSnO3), dizinc tin tetroxide (Zn2SnO4), strontium titanium trioxide (SrTiO3), barium titanium trioxide (BaTiO3), zinc tritanate (Zn2Ti3O8), silica (SiO2), alumina (Al2O3), hafnia (HfO2), magnesium oxide (MgO), molybdenum trioxide (MoO3), diiron trioxide (Fe2O3), tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5), tantalum oxynitride (TaON), or diindium trioxide (In2O3) (see, e.g., Wann: par. [0022]).
Regarding claim 17, Kim in view of Wann shows (see, e.g., Wann: figs. 2 and 5) that the metal oxide comprises titanum oxide TiO2, TiO2-x, TiO, Ti2O, Ti3O, Ti2O3, or TinO2n-1, wherein x satisfies 0<x<1, and n is an integer ranging from 3 to 9 (see, e.g., Wann: par. [0022]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim in view of Eldridge (US 2003/0045082).
Regarding claim 18, Kim shows (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) most aspects of the instant invention including a photodetector 1 (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0025]) comprising a tunneling barrier layer 110.
However, Kim fails (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) to show that the tunneling barrier layer 110 comprises a metal oxide and a silicon oxide. Kim shows (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) that the tunneling barrier layer 110 comprises a germanium oxide (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0038]).
Eldridge, in a similar device to Kim, also teaches (see, e.g., Eldridge: fig. 7B) that the tunneling barrier layer 110 comprises a metal oxide and a silicon oxide (see, e.g., Eldridge: par. [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the germanium oxide of Kim or the metal oxide and silicon oxide of Eldridge because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as materials in tunneling barrier layers in semiconductor devices, as taught by Kim and by Eldridge, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nam (US 2016/0156882) in view of Kim (KR 20160143602).
Regarding claim 19, Nam shows (see, e.g., Nam: figs. 1 and 4) most aspects of the instant invention including an image sensor 10 (see, e.g., Nam: abstract) comprising:
A sensor array 30 comprising a plurality of photo-sensing elements 31
wherein:
The plurality of photo-sensing elements 31 comprises a plurality of photodetectors 31, respectively (see, e.g., Nam: par. [0056])
At least one processor 100 configured to read photoelectric signals generated from the plurality of photo-sensing elements (see, e.g., Nam: par. [0068])
However, Nam fails (see, e.g., Nam: figs. 1 and 4) to show that at least one of the plurality of photodetectors 31 comprises a first semiconductor layer comprising germanium. Kim, in a similar device to Nam, shows (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) a photodetector 1 has a first semiconductor layer 100 comprising germanium. Kim also shows (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) that the semiconductor layer that comprising germanium improves detection over a wide wavelength range (400 to 900 nm) in an effect unique to germanium-based devices that distinguishes them from devices using silicon materials (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0082]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art modify Nam to include semiconductor layer that comprising germanium of the device of Kim in order to improve detection over a wide wavelength range (400 to 900 nm) in an effect unique to germanium-based devices that distinguishes them from devices using silicon materials.
Nam in view of Kim also shows (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 1-2, and annotated fig. 2) that:
A conductive layer 200 that, in conjunction with the first semiconductor layer 100, forms a Schottky junction structure (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0129])
A tunneling barrier layer 110 positioned between the first semiconductor layer 100 and the conductive layer 100 and configured to prevent or reduce dark current between the first semiconductor layer 100 and the conductive layer 200 (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0040]) (also see MPEP 2012.01, and MPEP 2114.I/2114.II)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIBERIU DAN ONUTA whose telephone number is (571) 270-0074 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Tiberiu.Onuta@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/TIBERIU DAN ONUTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights