DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Negishi et al. US 2021/0119149.
PNG
media_image1.png
546
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Negishi et al. US 2021/0119149
Regarding claim 1, Negishi et al. in Fig. 7 and [0118]-[0129] disclose a vertical color sensing element, comprising:
a R-sensing channel layer 42R [0127]- [0129] comprising a first sensing material;
a first transparent insulating layer 44 [0124] and [0139] disposed on a side of the R-sensing channel layer, the first transparent insulating layer having a first thickness;
a G-sensing channel layer 42G [0127]- [0129] comprising a second sensing material, the G-sensing channel layer disposed on a side of the first insulating transparent layer 44 opposite the R- sensing channel layer;
a second transparent insulating layer 45 [0124] and [0139] disposed on a side of the G-sensing channel layer opposite the first transparent insulating layer, the second transparent insulation layer having a second thickness; and
a B-sensing channel layer 42B [0127]- [0129] comprising a third sensing material, the B-sensing channel layer disposed on a side of the second transparent insulating layer opposite the G-sensing channel layer.
Regarding claim 17, Negishi et al. in Fig. 7 and [0118]-[0129] disclose vertical color sensing element of claim 1, and Fig. 9 disclose a sensing device comprising an array of vertical color sensing elements claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-5, 8-10, 13, 15-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negishi et al. as applied to claims 1 and 17 above.
Regarding claim 2, Negishi et al. in Fig. 7 and [0118]-[0129] disclose the vertical color sensing element of claim 1. Negishi et al. teach a thickness and the bandgap of a constituent material of the insulating layers, 2 nm to 100 nm and 3.0 eV or more but do not expressly disclose wherein the first and second thicknesses are based upon focal lengths of R-light, G-light and B-light entering the vertical color sensing device.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 3, Negishi et al. in Fig. 7 and [0118]-[0129] teach the vertical color sensing element of claim 2, but do not expressly teach wherein the focal lengths are associated with a lens directing the R-light, G-light and B-light into the vertical color sensing device.
However, wherein the focal lengths are associated with a lens directing the R-light, G-light and B-light into the vertical color sensing device, is drawn to a method of use or a device under test. The intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case the structure is capable of performing this use.
Regarding claim 4, Negishi et al. in Fig. 7 and [0118]-[0129] teach the vertical color sensing element of claim 3, but do not expressly teach wherein the vertical color sensing element has a geometry conforming to a field curvature generated by the lens.
However, wherein the vertical color sensing element has a geometry conforming to a field curvature generated by the lens, is drawn to a method of use or a device under test. The intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case the structure is capable of performing this use.
Regarding claim 5, Negishi et al. in Fig. 7 and [0118]-[0129] teach the vertical color sensing element of claim 3, further comprising a UV-sensing layer or an IR-sensing layer 18, silicon nitride [0085] broad transparency window from visible through mid-infrared, low propagation loss and compatibility with photonic integration.
Regarding claim 8, Negishi et al. in Fig. 7 and [0118]-[0129] teach the vertical color sensing element of claim 1, but do not expressly teach wherein one or more of the first, second and third sensing materials are van der Waal semiconductors (vdW-Ss).
However, Negishi et al. in [0074]-[0075] teach a list of compounds that make up the photoelectric conversion layer that improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency and reduce the dark current of the imaging device. One group of compounds includes the chalcogenide. Chalcogenide are known to be van der Waal materials depending on their crystal structure and bonding.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a chalcogenide material as van der Waal materials to improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency and reduce the dark current of the imaging device.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 9, Negishi et al. in Fig. 7 and [0118]-[0129] teach the vertical color sensing element of claim 1, but do not expressly teach wherein thickness of the first, second or third sensing material is based upon sensitivity of that sensing material.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 10, Negishi et al. in Fig. 7 and [0118]-[0129] teach the vertical color sensing element of claim 1, but do not expressly teach wherein the first sensing material comprises copper indium selenide (CIS), or the second sensing material comprises indium selenide (InSe), or the third sensing material comprises gallium sulfide (GaS).
However, Negishi et al. in [0074]-[0075] teach a list of compounds that make up the photoelectric conversion layer that improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency and reduce the dark current of the imaging device. One group of compounds includes the chalcogenide. Chalcogenide are compounds containing elements from group 16 of the periodic table (oxygen, sulfur, selenium, tellurium).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a chalcogenide material materials to improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency and reduce the dark current of the imaging device.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 13, Negishi et al. in Fig. 7 and [0118]-[0129] teach the vertical color sensing element of claim 1, but do not expressly teach wherein the first transparent insulating layer comprises magnesium fluoride (MgF2) or mica, or the second transparent insulating layer comprises magnesium fluoride (MgF2) or mica.
Negishi et al. in [0139] teach the insulating layers 44 and 45 are each configured by, for example, a metal oxide, a metal sulfide, or an organic material. Examples of the metal oxide include silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, titanium oxide, zinc oxide, tungsten oxide, magnesium oxide, niobium oxide, tin oxide, and gallium oxide. Examples of the metal sulfide include zinc sulfide and magnesium sulfide.
Although Negishi et al. do not disclose the exact material of the first and second transparent insulating layer as that claimed by the Applicant, the material differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless obvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 15, Negishi et al. in Fig. 7 and [0118]-[0129] teach the vertical color sensing element of claim 1, but do not expressly teach wherein the first, second and third sensing materials comprise a series of a van der Waal semiconductor (vdW-S).
However, Negishi et al. in [0074]-[0075] teach a list of compounds that make up the photoelectric conversion layer that improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency and reduce the dark current of the imaging device. One group of compounds includes the chalcogenide. Chalcogenide are known to be van der Waal materials depending on their crystal structure and bonding.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a chalcogenide material as van der Waal materials to improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency and reduce the dark current of the imaging device.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 16, Negishi et al. in Fig. 7 and [0118]-[0129] teach the vertical color sensing element of claim 15, but do not expressly teach wherein the vdW-S is GaSe1-xSx, InGa1-xSex, InGa1-x SexTe, TexSe1-x, Gaxln1-x Se, GaSxSe1-x, MoSxSe1-x, or MoxW1-x Se2 where 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 with each of the first, second and third sensing materials tuned to a different bandgap.
However, Negishi et al. in [0074]-[0075] teach a list of compounds that make up the photoelectric conversion layer that improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency and reduce the dark current of the imaging device. One group of compounds includes the chalcogenide. Chalcogenide are compounds containing elements from group 16 of the periodic table (oxygen, sulfur, selenium, tellurium).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a chalcogenide material materials to improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency and reduce the dark current of the imaging device.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 18, Negishi et al. in Fig. 7 and [0118]-[0129] teach the vertical color sensing element of claim 17, but do not expressly teach wherein the array of vertical color sensing elements is formed on a curved device holder.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the array of vertical color sensing elements is formed on a curved device holder” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without a curved device holder). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the array of vertical color sensing elements is formed on a curved device holder” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. There is no rationale given that the invention will not function without a device holder that is curved. Thus, the claimed wherein the array of vertical color sensing elements is formed on a curved device holder is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the array of vertical color sensing elements is formed on a curved device holder” is significant; the claimed limitation of “wherein the array of vertical color sensing elements is formed on a curved device holder” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the array of vertical color sensing elements is formed on a curved device holder” is not patentable over Negishi et al.
Regarding claim 19, Negishi et al. in Fig. 7 and [0118]-[0129] teach the vertical color sensing element of claim 18, but do not expressly teach wherein curvature of the curved device holder conforms to a field curvature generated by a lens that directs light into the array of vertical color sensing elements.
However, wherein curvature of the curved device holder conforms to a field curvature generated by a lens that directs light into the array of vertical color sensing elements, is drawn to a method of use or a device under test. The intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case the structure is capable of performing this use.
Claim(s) 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negishi et al.
Regarding claim 21, Negishi et al. in Fig. 7 and [0118]-[0129] disclose a vertical optical sensor, comprising:
a first sensing channel layer 42R [0127]- [0129] comprising a first sensing material;
a transparent insulating layer 44 [0124] and [0139] disposed on a side of the first sensing channel layer, the first transparent insulating layer having a thickness;
a second sensing channel layer 42B [0127]- [0129] comprising a second sensing material, the second sensing channel layer disposed on a side of the insulating transparent layer 44 opposite the first sensing channel layer 42R.
Negishi et al. do not expressly disclose the first sensing channel layer comprising a first sensing material comprising a van der Waal semiconductor (vdW-S).
However, Negishi et al. in [0074]-[0075] teach a list of compounds that make up the photoelectric conversion layer that improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency and reduce the dark current of the imaging device. One group of compounds includes the chalcogenide. Chalcogenide are known to be van der Waal materials depending on their crystal structure and bonding.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a chalcogenide material as van der Waal materials to improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency and reduce the dark current of the imaging device.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 22, Negishi et al. in Fig. 7 and [0118]-[0129] teach the vertical optical sensor of claim 21, wherein the first sensing material exhibits a first photoresponse spectral range, R-sensing channel layer 42R [0124] and the second sensing material exhibits a second photoresponse spectral range different than the first photoresponse spectral range, a B-sensing channel layer 42B [0124].
Regarding claim 23, Negishi et al. in Fig. 7 and [0118]-[0129] teach the vertical optical sensor of claim 21, wherein the second sensing channel is a UV-sensing layer (10-400 nm) 42B [0124] or an IR-sensing layer.
Regarding claim 24, Negishi et al. in Fig. 7 and [0118]-[0129] teach the vertical optical sensor of claim 21, but do not expressly teach wherein the vdW-S is a Ill-VI group semiconductor, a Ill-V group compound, or a transition metal chalcogenide.
However, Negishi et al. in [0074]-[0075] teach a list of compounds that make up the photoelectric conversion layer that improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency and reduce the dark current of the imaging device. One group of compounds includes the chalcogenide. Chalcogenide are known to be van der Waal materials depending on their crystal structure and bonding.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a chalcogenide material as van der Waal materials to improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency and reduce the dark current of the imaging device.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 25, Negishi et al. in Fig. 7 and [0118]-[0129] teach the vertical optical sensor of claim 21, but do not expressly teach wherein the first sensing material comprises a vdW-S alloy having a first composition of elements tuned to a first bandgap and the second sensing material comprises the vdW-S alloy having a second composition of elements tuned to a second bandgap.
However, Negishi et al. in [0074]-[0075] teach a list of compounds that make up the photoelectric conversion layer that improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency and reduce the dark current of the imaging device. One group of compounds includes the chalcogenide. Chalcogenide are known to be van der Waal materials depending on their crystal structure and bonding.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a chalcogenide material as van der Waal materials to improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency and reduce the dark current of the imaging device.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 26, Negishi et al. in Fig. 7 and [0118]-[0129] teach the vertical color sensing element of claim 25, but do not expressly teach wherein the vdW-S alloy is GaSe1-xSx, InGa1-xSex, InGa1-x SexTe, TexSe1-x, Gaxln1-x Se, GaSxSe1-x, MoSxSe1-x, or MoxW1-x Se2 where 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 with each of the first, second and third sensing materials tuned to a different bandgap.
However, Negishi et al. in [0074]-[0075] teach a list of compounds that make up the photoelectric conversion layer that improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency and reduce the dark current of the imaging device. One group of compounds includes the chalcogenide. Chalcogenide are compounds containing elements from group 16 of the periodic table (oxygen, sulfur, selenium, tellurium).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a chalcogenide material materials to improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency and reduce the dark current of the imaging device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious in the context of the claims, wherein the UV- sensing layer is separated from the B-sensing channel layer by another transparent insulating layer, or the IR-sensing layer is separated from the R-sensing channel layer by another transparent insulating layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONYA D MCCALL-SHEPARD whose telephone number is (571)272-9801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights