DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims status: amended claim: 1; the rest is unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new reference. Additionally, allowable subject matters in the previous office action have been rescinded in light of the newly found reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schimert et al. (US 2011/0266443 A1; pub. Nov. 3, 2011) in view of Oulachgar et al. (US 2016/0178444 A1; pub. Jun. 23, 2016).
Regarding claim 1, Schimert et al. disclose in a first embodiment: An uncooled infrared polarization detection pixel structure, comprising a semiconductor base (fig.3 item 216), an infrared detection pixel (fig.3 item 312), and a micro-grating (fig.3 item 324), wherein the infrared detection pixel (fig.3 item 312) comprises a first bridge pier (fig.3 item 316) and a pixel layer (fig.3 item 312), the pixel layer is arranged on a side of the semiconductor base by the first bridge pier, an electrode (fig.3 item 316) is arranged on a surface of the pixel layer facing away from the semiconductor base.
In the first embodiment Schimert et al. are silent about: the electrode is electrically connected to the semiconductor base through a connection line and the first bridge pier; the micro-grating comprises a second bridge pier and a grating layer, the grating layer is arranged on a side of the infrared detection pixel facing away from the semiconductor base by the second bridge pier, the grating layer comprises a light transmission region, a grating is arranged along a predetermined polarization direction in the light transmission region, the light transmission region is arranged in a regular polygon shape having edges of 2n times of the number of the predetermined polarization directions where n is a positive integer, and a direction of a light transmission axis of the grating is parallel to a predetermined edge of the light transmission region; and the pixel layer is arranged in a regular polygon shape corresponding to the light transmission region, an absorption unit is arranged on the surface of the side of the pixel layer facing away from the semiconductor base, and the absorption unit causes the infrared detection pixel to be insensitive to light absorption polarization.
In a further embodiment Schimert et al. disclose: the electrode is electrically connected to the semiconductor base through a connection line and the first bridge pier (para. [0075]); the micro-grating (para. [0074]) comprises a second bridge pier (para. [0074]) and a grating layer (para. [0074]), the grating layer is arranged on a side of the infrared detection pixel facing away from the semiconductor base by the second bridge pier (para. [0074]), the grating layer comprises a light transmission region (light passes grating elements 324 to reach pixel 312), a grating is arranged along a predetermined polarization direction in the light transmission region (para. [0071]), the light transmission region is arranged in a regular polygon shape having edges of 2n times of the number of the predetermined polarization directions where n is a positive integer (para. [0071], fig5 & fig.6), and a direction of a light transmission axis of the grating is parallel to a predetermined edge of the light transmission region (light passes grating elements 324 to reach pixel 312); and the pixel layer is arranged in a regular polygon shape corresponding to the light transmission region (fig.4 shows four pixels 312a – 312d), an absorption unit is arranged on the surface of the side of the pixel layer facing away from the semiconductor base (para. [0064] teaches a pixel structure 312 fig.3 including a thin film absorber layer, absorber layers are known in the art to be deposited over a pixel structure, para. [0093]) motivated by the benefits for an infrared detector that is versatile and scalable (Schimert et al. para. [0020]).
In light of the benefits for an infrared detector that is versatile and scalable as taught by Schimert et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the two embodiments of Schimert et al.
In the further embodiment Schimert et al. are silent about: the absorption unit causes the infrared detection pixel to be insensitive to light absorption polarization.
In a similar field of endeavor Oulachgar et al. disclose: the absorption unit causes the infrared detection pixel to be insensitive to light absorption polarization (para. [0095] teaches an optical absorber which absorption can selectively adjusted to any polarization and wavelength) motivated by the benefits for a tunable detector (Oulachgar et al. para. [0095]).
In light of the benefits for a tunable detector as taught by Oulachgar et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schimert et al. with the teachings of Oulachgar et al.
Regarding claim 2, Schimert et al. disclose: the first bridge pier overlaps with the second bridge pier (fig.3 items 320 & 308).
Regarding claim 3, Schimert et al. disclose: the first bridge pier is electrically insulated from the second bridge pier (para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 4, Schimert et al. disclose: the first bridge pier is a first supporting pillar, and/or the second bridge pier is a second supporting pillar (fig.3 items 320 & 308).
Regarding claim 5, Schimert et al. disclose: the first supporting pillar is a metal pillar prepared by a tungsten filling process, and the second supporting pillar is a metal pillar prepared by the tungsten filling process (para. [0063]).
Regarding claim 6, Schimert et al. disclose: the first bridge pier has a hollow structure, and/or the second bridge pier has a hollow structure (para. [0063]).
Regarding claim 7, Schimert et al. disclose: the grating layer is arranged with a release channel (fig.3 item 326) running through the grating layer.
Regarding claim 8, Schimert et al. disclose: the release channel is arranged in a gap between adjacent grating bars of the grating (fig.3 item 326) running through the grating layer.
Regarding claim 10, Oulachgar et al. disclose: the absorption unit (fig.7 item 28) and the electrode (fig.7 item 38) are arranged to be symmetrically distributed with respect to a center (fig.7 item 72) of the pixel layer, any of the predetermined polarization directions corresponds to the absorption unit or the electrode, and the absorption unit and the electrode absorb the same amount of light in the any of the predetermined polarization direction (para. [0095] teaches an optical absorber which absorption can selectively adjusted to any polarization and wavelength) motivated by the benefits for a tunable detector (Oulachgar et al. para. [0095]).
Regarding claim 12, Oulachgar et al. disclose: the absorption unit is insensitive to the light absorption polarization, and a light absorption performance of the absorption unit is stronger than a light absorption performance of the electrode (para. [0095] teaches an optical absorber which absorption can selectively adjusted to any polarization and wavelength) motivated by the benefits for a tunable detector (Oulachgar et al. para. [0095]).
Regarding claim 13, Oulachgar et al. disclose: polarization selective absorption of light by the absorption unit cancels out the polarization selective absorption of light by the electrode (para. [0095] teaches an optical absorber which absorption can selectively adjusted to any polarization and wavelength) motivated by the benefits for a tunable detector (Oulachgar et al. para. [0095]).
Regarding claim 14, Schimert et al. disclose: a plurality of infrared detection pixels, wherein four infrared detection pixels arranged in a rectangular pattern form a pixel group, and the pixel group is arranged with the micro-grating (fig.4).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schimert et al. (US 2011/0266443 A1; pub. Nov. 3, 2011) in view of Oulachgar et al. (US 2016/0178444 A1; pub. Jun. 23, 2016) and further in view of Kropelnicki et al. (US 2019/0027522 A1; pub. Jan. 24, 2019).
Regarding claim 9, the combined references are silent about: an anti-reflection layer is arranged on a surface of the grating facing away from the semiconductor base.
In a similar field of endeavor Kropelnicki et al. disclose: an anti-reflection layer is arranged on a surface of the grating facing away from the semiconductor base (claim 8) motivated by the benefits for a cost effective and compact infrared detector (Kropelnicki et al. para. [0003]).
In light of the benefits for a cost effective and compact infrared detector as taught by Kropelnicki et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schimert et al. and Oulachgar et al. with the teachings of Kropelnicki et al.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schimert et al. (US 2011/0266443 A1; pub. Nov. 3, 2011) in view of Oulachgar et al. (US 2016/0178444 A1; pub. Jun. 23, 2016) and further in view of Yang et al. (US 8,143,579 B2; pub. Mar. 27, 2012).
Regarding claim 11, Oulachgar et al. disclose: a size of the absorption unit (fig.7 item 28) is same as a size of the electrode (fig.7 item 38). The combined references are silent about: a material of the absorption unit is same as a material of the electrode.
In a similar field of endeavor Yang et al. disclose: a material of the absorption unit is same as a material of the electrode (col.7 L52-53 – col.8 L1) motivated by the benefits for an infrared detector with low resistivity, low noise constant (Yang et al. col.11 L48).
In light of the benefits for an infrared detector with low resistivity, low noise constant as taught by Yang et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schimert et al. and Oulachgar et al. with the teachings of Yang et al.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schimert et al. (US 2011/0266443 A1; pub. Nov. 3, 2011) in view of Oulachgar et al. (US 2016/0178444 A1; pub. Jun. 23, 2016) and further in view of Fang et al. (CN 109309140A; pub. Feb. 05, 2019).
Regarding claim 15, the combined references are silent about: the predetermined polarization directions comprise a 0° polarization direction, a 45° polarization direction, a 90° polarization direction and a 135° polarization direction, the grating layer comprises four light transmission regions, the pixel layer and the light transmission regions are both arranged in a regular octagonal shape, and directions of light transmission axes of gratings in the four light transmission regions respectively correspond to the four predetermined polarization directions
In a similar field of endeavor Fang et al. disclose: the predetermined polarization directions comprise a 0° polarization direction, a 45° polarization direction, a 90° polarization direction and a 135° polarization direction, the grating layer comprises four light transmission regions, the pixel layer and the light transmission regions are both arranged in a regular octagonal shape, and directions of light transmission axes of gratings in the four light transmission regions respectively correspond to the four predetermined polarization directions (para. [0036]) motivated by the benefits for a detector that can acquire real-time information and is free from crosstalk (Fang et al. para. [0008]).
In light of the benefits for a detector that can acquire real-time information and is free from crosstalk as taught by Fagan et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schimert et al. and Oulachgar et al. with the teachings of Fagan et al.
Regarding claim 16, the combined references are silent about: the predetermined polarization directions comprise a 0° polarization direction, a 60°polarization direction and a 120° polarization direction, the grating layer comprises four light transmission regions, the pixel layer and the light transmission regions are both arranged in a regular hexagonal shape, directions of light transmission axes of gratings in two of the four light transmission regions correspond to one of the predetermined polarization directions, and directions of light transmission axes of gratings in the other two of the four light transmission regions respectively correspond to the other two of the predetermined polarization directions.
In a similar field of endeavor Fang et al. disclose: the predetermined polarization directions comprise a 0° polarization direction, a 60°polarization direction and a 120° polarization direction, the grating layer comprises four light transmission regions, the pixel layer and the light transmission regions are both arranged in a regular hexagonal shape, directions of light transmission axes of gratings in two of the four light transmission regions correspond to one of the predetermined polarization directions, and directions of light transmission axes of gratings in the other two of the four light transmission regions respectively correspond to the other two of the predetermined polarization directions (para. [0036] – [0039]) motivated by the benefits for a detector that can acquire real-time information and is free from crosstalk (Fang et al. para. [0008]).
In light of the benefits for a detector that can acquire real-time information and is free from crosstalk as taught by Fagan et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schimert et al. and Oulachgar et al. with the teachings of Fagan et al.
Regarding claim 17, the combined references are silent about: the predetermined polarization directions comprise a 0° polarization direction, a 60° polarization direction and a 120° polarization direction, the grating layer comprises three light transmission regions, the pixel layer and the light transmission regions are both arranged in a regular hexagonal shape, and directions of light transmission axes of gratings in the three light transmission regions respectively correspond to the three predetermined polarization directions
In a similar field of endeavor Fang et al. disclose: the predetermined polarization directions comprise a 0° polarization direction, a 60° polarization direction and a 120° polarization direction, the grating layer comprises three light transmission regions, the pixel layer and the light transmission regions are both arranged in a regular hexagonal shape, and directions of light transmission axes of gratings in the three light transmission regions respectively correspond to the three predetermined polarization directions (para. [0036] – [0039]) motivated by the benefits for a detector that can acquire real-time information and is free from crosstalk (Fang et al. para. [0008]).
In light of the benefits for a detector that can acquire real-time information and is free from crosstalk as taught by Fagan et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schimert et al. and Oulachgar et al. with the teachings of Fagan et al.
Regarding claim 18, Schimert et al. disclose: a shading region is arranged between adjacent light transmission regions to block light from irradiating the infrared detection pixels (fig.3 item 326).
Regarding claim 19, Schimert et al. disclose: the uncooled infrared polarization detection pixel structure according to claim 1 (para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 20, Schimert et al. disclose: the uncooled infrared polarization detection pixel structure according to claim 1 (para. [0069]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights