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 .
Continuity and Related-Application Review
The examiner verified that application No. 19/024,833 is a continuation of application No. 18/509,093, filed November 14, 2023, now U.S. Patent No. 12,220,205. The examiner reviewed the publicly available patent documents and prosecution records for the parent application and the applications and patents identified in the continuity chain, including their claims, specifications, references, search results, and Office Actions, for teachings material to the presently claimed subject matter and for additional prior-art search leads.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/09/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 9, 13, and 15–19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,220,205. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the pending claims recite the same thin-window detector architecture and select the materials, lattice relationships, dimensions, and performance results described for that architecture.
Claim comparison.
Pending claims 1–3 and Patent claims 1 and 13
Same 25–150 nm wafer/window/diffusion/absorption detector and InAlAs window. Pending claims select the expressly described broadband or endpoint EQE performance of that patented detector architecture.
Pending claim 4 and Patent claims 1 and 13.
Patented claim 1 expressly includes p-type diffusion, undoped or n-type absorption, and n-type wafer. The added conductivity limitation is already claimed; the EQE recitation does not create a different detector invention.
Pending claims 5–7 and Patent claims 1, 13, 15, 18.
InAlAs, lattice mismatch, and a bandgap range encompassing about 1.68 eV are claimed. The exact In₀.₄₆Al₀.₅₄As/1.68 eV selection is an expressly described species within the patented material and bandgap scope.
Pending claims 8–10 and Patent claims 1, 13, 16, 18
InAlAs, lattice matching, and a bandgap range encompassing about 1.52 eV are claimed. The In₀.₅₂Al₀.₄₈As/1.52 eV selection is an expressly described lattice-matched species within the patented scope.
Pending claims 11–12 and Patent claims 2, 9, 13.
About 50 nm lies within 50–100 nm; diffusion through the window and absorption regions is expressly claimed. These limitations further select features already claimed for the same base detector.
Pending claims 13–14 and Patent claim 13, 17, 19.
At least 5 mm² and the visible/NIR emitter and supporting housing are expressly claimed. The dependent claims add no patentably distinct detector architecture.
Pending claims 15–17 and Patent claim 1, 2, 13.
Same thin InAlAs detector architecture, including about 50 nm. The 450-nm and 1200-nm numerical endpoints characterize an expressly described operating result of the patented detector.
Pending claims 18–20 and Patent claims 1, 2, 15
Same 25–150 nm detector with a lattice-mismatched window; about 50 nm is expressly claimed. The continuous 500–1400 nm result and 50–100 nm subrange do not define a patentably distinct detector from the patented species.
The pending claims seek a second patent on the same thin-window detector architecture by selecting expressly described materials, lattice relationships, thicknesses, and measured EQE results already disclosed for the patented combination. As such, claims 1–20 are rejected for non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over the identified claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,220,205.
This rejection may be overcome by a showing that the pending claims are patentably distinct, by appropriate amendment or cancellation, or—assuming the applicable ownership requirements are satisfied—by filing a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. §1.321.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under non-statutory double patenting rejection but if the double patenting rejection is overcome, the application is in condition for allowance on the present record below.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 1, the prior art of record fails to expressly disclose or render obvious a sensor for detection including a visible and near-infrared detector having a semiconductor wafer, an absorption region, a diffusion region, and a 25–150 nm indium-aluminum-arsenide window, with external quantum efficiency of at least 50% throughout 500–1400 nm, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Huang teaches an InGaAs PIN photodiode with enhanced visible and near-infrared response and reports quantum efficiency above 70% from 550–1650 nm, but Huang removes the InP cap in the active aperture and does not disclose the claimed InAlAs window or performance from 500–550 nm. Yuan teaches an InP/InGaAs PIN structure and states that a lattice-matched InAlAs layer may be used, but Yuan describes a back-illuminated arrangement and does not disclose the claimed active-window thickness or a measured EQE curve.
Both references therefore miss the claimed combination: the thin InAlAs window in the recited layer arrangement and at least 50% EQE across the complete 500–1400 nm interval. The claimed thin window passes more visible radiation while maintaining surface passivation. The disclosed 50 nm In₀.₄₆Al₀.₅₄As example produces about 65% EQE at 500 nm and about 85–96% through much of 800–1400 nm, improving the same detector's visible response without sacrificing near-infrared performance. Claim 1 is allowable over the prior art examined.
With regards to claim 15, the prior art of record fails to expressly disclose or render obvious the same thin InAlAs-window detector architecture and requires at least 30% EQE at about 450 nm and at least 70% EQE at about 1200 nm in the same detector, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Huang supplies the near-infrared teaching because its reported range includes 1200 nm, but it provides no express 450 nm result and no claimed InAlAs window. King teaches that a wide-bandgap lattice-mismatched window can improve blue transmission and reports strong 450 nm response, but King's measured device is an AlInP/GaInP photovoltaic cell, its spectrum ends near 700 nm, and it does not disclose the claimed InAlAs-window InGaAs detector.
Both references therefore fail to show the two required endpoint results in one detector having the claimed 25–150 nm InAlAs window and layer arrangement. The disclosed device reaches about 40% EQE at 450 nm and about 96% at 1200 nm in the same thin-window detector. That combination provides useful blue and near-infrared sensitivity in one sensor rather than relying on separate detector structures optimized for different spectral regions. Claim 15 is allowable over the prior art examined.
With regards to claim 18, the prior art of record fails to expressly disclose or render obvious the wafer, absorption region, diffusion region, and 25–150 nm window arrangement, with a lattice-mismatched window and at least 50% EQE throughout 500–1400 nm, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Huang teaches broadband InGaAs detection but expressly reports its high-efficiency range only from 550 nm and does not use a lattice-mismatched window. King teaches the general concept of a lattice-mismatched wide-bandgap front layer for improved blue transmission, but does not provide a worked 25–150 nm InAlAs/InGaAs detector or the required 500–1400 nm performance.
Both references therefore miss the claimed detector in which a thin lattice-mismatched window provides the complete visible-to-near-infrared EQE result. The thin mismatched layer can remain of another, permitting a wider-bandgap window that transmits more short-wavelength radiation without introducing the defect and recombination penalty associated with a relaxed mismatched layer. The claimed detector provides over 50% EQE at 500 nm and at 1400 nm, supporting one continuous visible-to-near-infrared response. Claim 18 is allowable over the prior art examined.
Claims 2–14 depend from claim 1, claims 16–17 depend from claim 15, and claims 19–20 depend from claim 18. The prior art does not cure the deficiencies identified for the respective independent claims. The dependent claims are therefore allowable over the external prior art examined, subject to the double-patenting rejection stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJURA MALEVIC whose telephone number is (571)272-5975. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9-5).
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.
/DJURA MALEVIC/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights