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
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 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Das et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0280685 A1, hereinafter “Das”).
In reference to claim 1, Das discloses a device which meets the claim. The annotated fig. 1a of Das provided below discloses a photoelectric conversion element in the form of a phototransistor which comprises a photoelectric conversion member (12) containing a transition metal dichalcogenide in the form of MoS2, MoSe2, WS2, and WSe2 (p. 4, paragraph 47, p. 6, paragraph 62). There is a first/source electrode (14) and a second/drain electrode (16) connected to the photoelectric conversion member (12). The first/source electrode (14) and the second/drain electrode (16) include facing portions where at least a part of the first/source electrode (14) and at least a part of the second/drain electrode (16) are arranged to face each other in a parallel manner. The length W or channel width is in the range of 2 µm to 4 µm while the separation distance Lch or channel length between the first/source electrode (14) and the second/drain electrode (16) is 2 µm (p. 6, paragraph 62). The claimed relationship of “W/Lch ≤ 36.7” is met by Das with W at a range of 2 µm to 4 µm while Lch is 2 µm since the greatest value of W/Lch is 2 (when W = 4 µm and Lch = 2 µm) which is less than 36.7.
PNG
media_image1.png
362
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, the examiner notes the limitation, “the length W is 500 nm or more and 500 µm or less, and the separation distance Lch is 10 nm or more and 10 µm or less.” The limitation regarding the length or W is met by Das (p. 6, paragraph 62) with W at a range of 2 µm to 4 µm (2000 nm to 4000 nm) which is inside the claimed range of “500 nm or more and 500 µm or less.” Das (p. 6, paragraph 62) discloses that Lch is 2 µm (2000 nm) which is inside the claimed range of “10 nm or more and 10 µm or less.”
In reference to claim 3, Das discloses that the photoelectric conversion member (12) is molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) having a thickness of 3 atomic layers (p. 4, paragraph 47). Kis et al. (US 2014/0197459 A1) discloses that an atomic layer of MoS2 has a thickness of 0.65 nm (p. 1, paragraph 2). Thus in the device disclosed by Das, the photoelectric conversion member (12) made of MoS2 (molybdenum disulfide) having a thickness of 3 atomic layers is 1.95 nm thick. Liu et al. (US 2022/0093813 A1) discloses that a layer of molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) with a thickness less than 5 nm is transparent to visible light (p. 2, paragraph 28). Thus the photoelectric conversion member (12) of Das meets claim 3.
With regard to claim 7, the photoelectric conversion member (12) has a flat plate shape. The photoelectric conversion member (12) is provided on a base material (20) having a flat plate shape via the first/source electrode (14) and the second/drain electrode (16).
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Sano et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0113539 A1, hereinafter “Sano”).
In reference to claim 4, Das does not disclose that the first/source electrode (14) and the second/drain electrode (16) in fig. 1a are made of a material transparent to visible light. However Sano discloses the known use of ITO (indium tin oxide), which is transparent to visible light, as the material for source and drain electrodes (p. 4, paragraph 83). The applicant is reminded in this regard that it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use would be entirely obvious. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See MPEP 2144.07. In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use ITO (indium tin oxide), which is transparent to visible light, as the material for the first/source electrode (14) and the second/drain electrode (16) in the Das device.
In reference to claim 5, Das does not disclose that the first/source electrode (14) and the second/drain electrode (16) in fig. 1a each contains an indium tin oxide. However Sano discloses the known use of ITO (indium tin oxide) as the material for source and drain electrodes (p. 4, paragraph 83). The applicant is reminded in this regard that it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use would be entirely obvious. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See MPEP 2144.07. In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use ITO (indium tin oxide) as the material for the first/source electrode (14) and the second/drain electrode (16) in the Das device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Taniguchi et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0032896 A1, hereinafter “Taniguchi”).
In reference to claim 6, Das discloses that the device of fig. 1a is a phototransistor (p. 4, paragraph 44) but does not disclose that an antireflection agent layer is on the photoelectric conversion member (12). However Taniguchi discloses that forming an antireflection agent layer on the light-receiving region of a phototransistor prevents reflection of incident light from the phototransistor surface which leads to the benefit of efficient introduction of incident light into the phototransistor (p 3, paragraph 52). In view of Sano, it would therefore be obvious to implement an antireflection agent layer on the photoelectric conversion member (12) of Das.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Ishaque (USPN 5,517,052, hereinafter “Ishaque”).
In reference to claim 8, Das discloses that the device of fig. 1a is a phototransistor (p. 4, paragraph 44) but does not disclose that a plurality of the phototransistors is implemented. However Ishaque discloses implementing a plurality of phototransistors for use as large area radiation detectors (column 7, lines 20-25). Das discloses that the phototransistor in fig. 1a exhibits low noise (p. 9, paragraph 85, fig. 6a-6b). Ishaque discloses that low noise or cross-talk is desirable in photodetector arrays (column 7, lines 25-30). In view of Ishaque, it would therefore be obvious to implement a plurality of the phototransistors disclosed by Das in a radiation detector array.
With regard to claim 9, in the annotated fig. 1a of Das provided below, the area of the planar portion of the photosensitive channel/photoelectric conversion member (12) is measured by W (length also known as channel width) × Lch (separation distance also known as channel length). Thus in the device of Das constructed in view of Ishaque, there is a plurality of phototransistors/photo conversion elements where each of the planar portions of the photosensitive channels/photoelectric conversion members (12 – fig. 1a of Das) has an area determined by W × Lch. The examiner notes the limitation that a sum of the areas of the photoelectric conversion members is “0.1 cm2 or more.” Neither of the above references explicitly discloses that a sum of the photosensitive areas of all of the photoelectric conversion members is “0.1 cm2 or more.” However Ishaque discloses the desire to increase the total photosensitive area of a photodetector array for improved sensitivity (column 1, lines 10-19 and 53-60, column 2, lines 4-7, column 7, lines 20-25). Thus Ishaque makes it clear that the sum of the planar portions of the photosensitive areas of the photoelectric conversion members is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the sum of the photosensitive areas of all of the photosensitive channels/photoelectric conversion members to be 0.1 cm2 or more, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore claim 9 is not patentable over Das and Ishaque.
PNG
media_image1.png
362
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Ishaque as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Perrin (USPN 5,862,844, hereinafter “Perrin”) and further in view of Ivanov et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0019334 A1, hereinafter “Ivanov”).
In reference to claim 10, neither Das nor Ishaque discloses that at least two rows of the phototransistors/photoelectric conversion elements are connected in parallel and in series via the first electrode and the second electrode. However fig. 5 of Perrin discloses connecting at least two rows of phototransistors in parallel and in series by their first and second electrodes. Perrin discloses that such a configuration provides the benefit of proper operation or current flow during low light conditions (column 6, lines 33-38). Ivanov discloses that photodetector devices that operate in low light conditions are desirable in the art (p. 2, paragraph 24, p. 9, paragraph 111). In view of Perrin and Ivanov, it would therefore be obvious to implement the device of Das constructed in view of Ishaque such that at least two rows of the phototransistors/photoelectric conversion elements are connected in parallel and in series via the first electrode and the second electrode.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kis et al. (US 2014/0197459 A1) discloses that an atomic layer of MoS2 has a thickness of 0.65 nm (p. 1, paragraph 2). Liu et al. (US 2022/0093813 A1) discloses that a layer of molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) with thickness less than 5 nm is transparent to visible light (p. 2, paragraph 28).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN QUINTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5:30.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at 571-270-3042. 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.
/KEVIN QUINTO/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights