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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on June 7th, 2024, and June 19th, 2024, are being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “INFRARED PHOTODECTOR WITH ENHANCED ELECTRON EXTRACTION VIA MERCURY TELLURIDE NANOCRYSTALS”.
The specification is objected to as section headings are not provided for the following sections of the specification, pursuant to MPEP 608.01(a) and 37 C.F.R. 1.77(c):
a) Background of the Invention
b) Brief Summary of the Invention
c) Brief Description of the Drawings
Applicant is reminded that said headings should be in UPPERCASE and without underlining or bold type (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to due to the following informalities:
a) [0055], “DESCRIPTION DETAILLEE” should read “DETAILED DESCRIPTION”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
a) Claim 1, line 1: “Infrared photodetector” should read “An infrared photodetector”;
b) Claim 2, line 1: “Photodetector” should read “The infrared photodetector”;
c) Claim 3, line 1: “Photodetector” should read “The infrared photodetector”;
d) Claim 4, line 1: “Photodetector” should read “The infrared photodetector”;
e) Claim 4, line 2: an extra space is to be removed after “comprises” and before “:”;
f) Claim 5, line 1: “Photodetector” should read “The infrared photodetector”;
g) Claim 6, line 1: “Photodetector” should read “The infrared photodetector”;
h) Claim 7, line 1: “Photodetector” should read “The infrared photodetector”;
i) Claim 8, line 1: “Photodetector” should read “The infrared photodetector”;
j) Claim 9, line 1: “Photodetector” should read “The infrared photodetector”;
k) Claim 10, line 1: “Photodetector” should read “The infrared photodetector”;
l) Claim 11, line 1: “Photodetector” should read “The infrared photodetector”;
m) Claim 12, line 1: “Photodetector” should read “The infrared photodetector”;
n) Claim 13, line 1: “Imaging device” should read “An imaging device”;
o) Claim 14, line 1: “Imaging device” should read “The imaging device”;
p) Claim 15, line 1: “Camera device” should read “A camera device”;
q) Claim 15, line 1: the phrase “in that” should be added such that the claim reads “characterized in that it comprises a plurality of photodetectors according to claim 1, configured to form a camera”;
r) Claim 16, line 1: “Camera device” should read “The camera device”;
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
With regard to Claim 3, said claim recites the broad recitation, “the conduction band of the infrared photon absorption layer is less than 1 eV”, and the claim also recites both “preferably less than 0.3 eV” and “more preferably less than 0.1 eV” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purpose of examination Examiner will interpret the claim to require less than 0.1 eV.
Additionally, Claim 8 recites the broad recitation, “the infrared photon absorption layer has an optical gap between 1 and 3 µm”, and the claim also recites “and preferably between 1.5 and 2.5 µm”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purpose of examination Examiner will interpret the claim to require 1.5 and 2.5 µm.
Finally, Claim 10 recites the broad recitation, “the metallic contact layer has a thickness of between 1 and 10 µm”, and the claim also recites, “and preferably of between 10 nm and 3 µm”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purpose of examination Examiner will interpret the claim to require 10 nm and 3 µm.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by So, et al. (US 20160211392 A1; hereinafter referred to as So).
Regarding Claim 1, So discloses an infrared photodetector (photodetector 100, [Abstract]), comprising an electron transport layer (electron transport layer 110, [0020], Fig. 1A) and an infrared photon absorption layer for generating an electrical signal (photon absorption layer 108, [0020], Fig. 1A), characterized in that the electron transport layer comprises nanocrystals of a compound selected from SnO2, ZnO, CdS, CdSe, aluminium-doped zinc oxide, Cr203, CuO, CuO2, Cu203, ZrO2, and mixture thereof and heterostructure thereof and alloy thereof ([0005]; “The electron transport layer can comprise ZnO or TiO2”), and in that the infrared photon absorption layer comprises nanocrystals of a compound selected from HgS, HgSe, HgTe, PbS, PbSe, PbTe, Ag2S, Ag2Se, Ag2Te, InAs, InGaAs and InSb and mixture thereof, and heterostructure thereof and alloy thereof ([0005]; “The semiconducting inorganic nanoparticles [infrared photon absorption layer] can comprise lead chalcogenides (e.g., PbS, PbSe), alloys of lead chalcogenides, mercury chalcogenides (e.g., HgS, HgSe, HgTe), alloys of mercury chalcogenides, III-V semiconductors based on indium and/or gallium (e.g., GaN, GaP, GaAs, InP), silicon, or any combinations thereof. The semiconducting inorganic nanoparticles can be PbS or PbSe.”).
Regarding Claim 3, So discloses the photodetector according to claim 1, characterized in that the offset between the conduction band of the electron transport layer and the conduction band of the infrared photon absorption layer is less than 1 eV, preferably less than 0.3 eV and more preferably less than 0.1 eV ([0034]; “the magnitude of the difference between the conduction band energy of the photoactive layer and the conduction band energy of the electron transport layer may be in the range of about 0.05 eV to about 0.1 eV”).
Regarding Claim 4, So discloses the photodetector according to claim 1, characterized in that it comprises:
- a mechanical substrate layer (substrate 102, [0020], Fig. 1A),
- an electron contact layer constituting a top electrode (cathode 112, [0020], Fig. 1A),
- the electron transport layer (electron transport layer 110, [0020], Fig. 1A),
- the infrared photon absorption layer for generating an electrical signal (photoactive layer 108, [0020], Fig. 1A),
- a hole transport layer (hole transport layer 106, [0020], Fig. 1A),
- a metallic contact layer for collecting charges, which forms a bottom electrode (anode 104, [0020], Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 5, So discloses the photodetector according to claim 4, characterized in that the mechanical substrate layer comprises a compound selected from glass, CaF2, undoped Si, undoped Ge, ZnSe, ZnS, KBr, LiF, A1203, KCI, BaF2, CdTe, NaCI, CsBr, MgF2, quartz, CdZnTe, InP, GaAs, thalium bromoiodide, and heterostructure thereof and alloy thereof ([0041]).
Regarding Claim 11, So discloses the photodetector according to claim 1, characterized in that the photodetector is a photodiode ([0053]).
Regarding Claim 13, So discloses an imaging device, characterized in that it comprises a plurality of photodetectors according to claim 1, configured to form an image ([0002]; So discloses that an imaging device is made with photodetectors).
Regarding Claim 14, So discloses the imaging device according to claim 13, characterized in that the plurality of photodetectors is coupled to a readout circuit ([0003], So discloses that the substrate of the photodetector can include integrated circuits, for which a readout circuit is a type of integrated circuit).
Regarding Claim 15, So discloses a camera device, characterized it comprises a plurality of photodetectors according to claim 1, configured to form a camera ([0002], So discloses an imaging device can be made using photodetectors, a camera is a type of imaging device).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d) 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.
Claim(s) 2, and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 11, and 13-15 above, and further in view of Lhuillier, et al (US 20200318255 A1; hereinafter referred to as Lhuillier).
Regarding Claim 2, So discloses the photodetector according to claim 1, characterized in that the infrared photon absorption layer comprises HgTe nanocrystals ([0005]; “mercury chalcogenides (e.g., HgS, HgSe, HgTe)”).
So fails to explicitly disclose that the electron transport layer comprises CdSe or SnO2 nanocrystals, but rather stating more broadly that the electron transport layer can be a metal oxide.
However, in analogous art, Lhuillier discloses an infrared photodetector with an electron transport layer, and in that the electron transport layer comprises CdSe or SnO2 nanocrystals ([1196-1199]; Examiner notes that CdSe is an inorganic compound as known in the art and is therefore taught by Lhuillier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electron transport layer as disclosed in So such that it contains CdSe or SnO2 nanocrystals as disclosed in Lhuillier. It would have been obvious to try CdSe or SnO2 as the nanocrystals in the electron transport layer in the infrared photon detector disclosed by So as, at the time of the instant application, there was an expressed need to improve photon detector functionality as identified by Lhuillier, that there was a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to said recognized need (e.g., SnO2 is expressly cited in Lhuillier [1198-1199] and CdSe is known in the art as a one n-type oxide (Lhuillier: [1196])), and that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (e.g., SnO2 and CdSe are taught in Lhuillier as being an embodiment of a photodetector device and, therefore, would have a reasonable expectation of success with a predictable solution). See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding Claim 6, So discloses the photodetector according to claim 4.
So does not expressly disclose that the electron transport layer has a thickness of between 0.5 and 500 nm.
However, in analogous art, Lhuillier does disclose that the electron transport layer has a thickness of between 0.5 and 500 nm (Lhuillier: [1193]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the thickness of the electron transport layer of the photodetector as disclosed in So to be within the range as disclosed in Lhuillier as it would merely result in an optimization of a result effective variable. The electron transport layer thickness is a result effective variable as one would have chosen the thickness of the electron transport layer by balancing the need for reducing a device size to increase the compactness of the photodetector with the need to retain the photodetector’s function. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to produce an electron transport layer in the claimed thickness range by balancing the desired effectiveness of reducing the device size while maintaining function.
Regarding Claim 7, So discloses the photodetector according to claim 4.
So does not expressly disclose that the infrared photon absorption layer has a thickness of between 1 nm and 1 µm.
However, in analogous art, Lhuillier discloses that the infrared photon absorption layer has a thickness of between 1 nm and 1 µm (Lhuillier: [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the thickness of the infrared photon absorption layer of the photodetector as disclosed in So to be within the range as disclosed in Lhuillier as it would merely result in an optimization of a result effective variable. The infrared photon absorption layer thickness is a result effective variable as one would have chosen the thickness of the infrared photon absorption layer by balancing the need for reducing a device size to increase the compactness of the photodetector with the need to retain the photodetector’s function. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to produce an infrared photon absorption layer in the claimed thickness range by balancing the desired effectiveness of reducing the device size while maintaining function.
Regarding Claim 8, So/Lhuillier discloses the photodetector according to claim 7, characterized in that the infrared photon absorption layer has an optical gap between 1 and 3 µm, and preferably between 1.5 and 2.5 µm (Lhuillier: [0582]).
Regarding Claim 9, So discloses the photodetector according to claim 4.
So fails to expressly disclose that the hole transport layer has thickness of between 0.5 nm and 500 nm.
However, in analogous art, Lhuillier discloses that the hole transport layer has thickness of between 0.5 nm and 500 nm (Lhuillier: [1292]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the thickness of the hole transport layer of the photodetector as disclosed in So to be within the range as disclosed in Lhuillier as it would merely result in an optimization of a result effective variable. The hole transport layer thickness is a result effective variable as one would have chosen the thickness of the hole transport layer by balancing the need for reducing a device size to increase the compactness of the photodetector with the need to retain the photodetector’s function. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to produce a hole transport layer in the claimed thickness range by balancing the desired effectiveness of reducing the device size while maintaining function.
Regarding Claim 10, So discloses the photodetector according to claim 4.
So does not expressly disclose that the metallic contact layer has a thickness of between 1 and 10 µm, and preferably of between 10 nm and 3 µm.
However, in analogous art, Lhuillier does disclose that the metallic contact layer (electronic contact layer 32) has a thickness of between 1 and 10 µm, and preferably of between 10 nm and 3 µm (Lhuillier: [1188]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the thickness of the metallic contact layer of the photodetector as disclosed in So to be within the range as disclosed in Lhuillier as it would merely result in an optimization of a result effective variable. The metallic contact layer is a result effective variable as one would have chosen the thickness of the metallic contact layer by balancing the need for reducing a device size to increase the compactness of the photodetector with the need to retain the photodetector’s function. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to produce metallic contact layer in the claimed thickness range by balancing the desired effectiveness of reducing the device size while maintaining function.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 11, and 13-15 above, and further in view of Kamada, et al. (US 20220115446 A1; hereinafter referred to as Kamada).
Regarding Claim 12, So discloses the photodetector according to claim 1.
So fails to disclose where the infrared photon absorption layer is coupled to a light resonator.
However, in analogous art, Kamada discloses that the light emitting elements are coupled to a light resonator (Kamada: [0109]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have the infrared photon absorption layer as taught in So be coupled to a light resonator as disclosed in Kamada. One would be motivated to do so because, when the light-emitting elements have a microcavity structure (a microcavity structure is a light resonator as defined by the instant specification, [0153]), light emission obtained from the layer can be resonated between the electrodes, thereby intensifying the light passing through the device (Kamada: [0109]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 11, and 13-15 above, and further in view of Nakamura (US 20180080831 A1; hereinafter referred to as Nakamura).
Regarding Claim 16, So discloses the camera device according to claim 15.
So does not expressly disclose that the camera device is characterized in that the plurality of photodetectors is coupled to an electronic system, an optical system, and a temperature control system.
However, in analogous art, Nakamura does disclose that a camera device comprising infrared cameras (infrared camera/infrared detector 13, [0032]) is coupled to an electronic system (computer 14, [0032]), an optical system (objective lens/light guiding optical system 12), and a temperature control system (temperature controller/temperature control unit 28, [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the camera device as disclosed in So by coupling to it an electronic system, an optical system, and a temperature control system as disclosed in Nakamura. One would be motivated to do so as one would have the expected result of a functioning infrared camera with increased performance due to the temperature control system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Guyot-Sion-Nest, et al. (WO 2012/162246 A2); discloses a mid-infrared photodetector comprising nanocrystals.
b) Lhuillier, et al. (US 2021/0087462 A1); discloses the method of producing mercury telluride nanocrystals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah C. Robertson whose telephone number is (571) 317-0595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (Eastern Time Zone).
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, William B Partridge, can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/Noah C. Robertson/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights