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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2005/0274871).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a photodetector, comprising:
a semiconductor photodetection element including a semiconductor layer having a first
surface and a second surface on a side opposite to the first surface (21, fig. 2 and paragraph 0023); and
a light-condensing structure disposed on the first surface (25, fig. 2 and paragraph 0023),
wherein the semiconductor layer includes a plurality of photodetection units which are
two-dimensionally arranged along the first surface or the second surface (112, figs. 3-8 and paragraphs 0024-0026),
the light-condensing structure includes,
a main body portion that has a plurality of first openings (124, figs. 4-5 and paragraph 0027) arranged to correspond to the plurality of photodetection units (112, figs. 3-8), and includes a plurality of layers stacked on the first surface (114, 116, figs. 5-8 and paragraphs 0027-0028),
and a metal layer that covers an inner surface of each of the plurality of first openings to
expose a region corresponding to each of the plurality of first openings in a surface of the semiconductor photodetection element (134, figs. 5-8 and paragraph 0029), and
in each of the plurality of first openings, a surface of the metal layer on a side opposite to the main body portion has a shape that spreads out to a side opposite to the semiconductor photodetection element (134, figs. 5-8 and paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 10, Li further discloses a protective layer that covers the surface of the metal layer and the region corresponding to each of the plurality of first openings in the surface of the semiconductor photodetection element (154, fig. 7 and paragraph 0030).
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.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2005/0274871) in view of Du Plessis et al. (US 8729582).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses the photodetector according to claim 1, as mentioned above. Li does not disclose wherein the inner surface of each of the plurality of first openings has a stepped shape in which each of the plurality of layers is set as at least one step. Du Plessis discloses a photodetector with a similar light condensing structure (Cols. 1-2) wherein the inner surface of each of the plurality of first openings has a stepped shape in which each of the plurality of layers is set as at least one step (figs. 2-7 and Cols. 3-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate Du Plessis’s light directing structure into Li’s photodetector since such is a known functional equivalent in the art and has specific advantages as mentioned by Du Plessis (Cols. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Du Plessis further discloses wherein in the inner surface of each of the plurality of first openings, a width of a first face of each of the plurality of layers on an inner side increases as being spaced apart from the semiconductor photodetection element (figs. 2-8).
Regarding claim 4, Du Plessis’s structure in the array of Li would disclose wherein in the inner surface of each of the plurality of first openings, a width of a second
face of each of the plurality of layers on a side opposite to the semiconductor photodetection element decreases as being spaced apart from the semiconductor photodetection element given the parabolic shape of the light directing structure (figs. 2-8).
Regarding claim 5, Du Plessis further discloses wherein in the inner surface of each of the plurality of first openings, an inclination angle made between a first face of each of the plurality of layers on an inner side and the first surface
increases as being spaced apart from the semiconductor photodetection element (Cols. 2-3, fundamental of parabola).
Regarding claim 6, Du Plessis further discloses wherein each of the plurality of layers is a first layer made of a first material, or a second layer made of a second material different from the first material, and
the first layer and the second layer are alternately stacked (figs. 2-8 and Col. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Du Plessis further discloses wherein the first layer is a layer in which a compressive stress occurs as an internal stress, and the second layer is a layer in which a tensile stress occurs as an internal stress (figs. 2-8 and Col. 4, property of the different materials).
Regarding claim 8, Du Plessis further discloses wherein the first material is an insulating material, and the second material is a metal material (Col. 4)
Regarding claim 9, Du Plessis further discloses wherein the second layer is electrically connected to the metal layer (figs. 2-8 and Cols. 4-5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-21 are 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:
Regarding claim 11, there is no teaching or suggestion in the art of record disclosing the photodetector according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of photodetection units includes a first-conductive-type first semiconductor region and a second-conductive-type second semiconductor region, the second semiconductor region is located on the first surface side with respect to the first semiconductor region so as to correspond to each of the plurality of first openings, and the second semiconductor region of each of the plurality of photodetection units, and a region surrounded by a skirt portion of the light-condensing structure in each of the plurality of first openings have a polygonal shape having a plurality of chamfered corners when viewed in a direction orthogonal to the first surface.
Claims 12-21 further depend on claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication 2014/0367816 and US Patent 9977235 both disclose a photodetector with a light directing structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS M MENZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469-295-9060. 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.
/DOUGLAS M MENZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897 8/2/26
Prosecution Insights