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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the word “generating” should be “generates”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0178741 ("Fukuzawa").
Regarding claim 1, Fukuzawa discloses an optical sensor comprising:
a photosensitive layer (layers 1, 2, 3, Figs. 5, 18, form photosensitive layer) that [generates] a voltage when the photosensitive layer is irradiated with light (paragraphs [0010], [0097], [0099],[0122], output voltage is generated/measured);
a first electrode (15, Figs. 5, 18);
a second electrode (16, Fig. 5); and
a metal layer (50, Fig. 18, paragraph [0141]),
wherein the photosensitive layer (layers 1, 2, 3, Figs. 5, 18) is located between the first electrode (15, Figs. 5, 18) and the second electrode (16, Fig. 5),
wherein the metal layer (50, Fig. 18) is located between the first electrode (15, Fig. 18) and the photosensitive layer (layers 1, 2, 3, Fig. 18, paragraph [0139]),
wherein the metal layer (50, Fig. 18) includes one selected from a group consisting of Ti, Ta, Cr, Mo, W, and Pt (paragraph [0141]) in a case where the photosensitive layer is irradiated with light of a wavelength equal to or greater than 400 nm and equal to or less than 800 nm (paragraphs [0057], [0091],[0125], [0129], includes visible light range, which is between 400-800 nm),
wherein the metal layer (50, Fig. 18) includes one selected from a group consisting of Ti, Cr, Mo, W, and Pt (paragraph [0141]) in a case where the photosensitive layer is irradiated with light of a wavelength equal to or greater than 400 nm and equal to or less than 1400 nm (applied light is 520 nm, paragraphs [0125]-[0126], Fig. 14), and
wherein the metal layer (50, Fig. 18) includes one selected from a group consisting of Ti, Cr, W, and Pt (paragraph [0141]) in a case where the photosensitive layer is irradiated with light of a wavelength equal to or greater than 400 nm and equal to or less than 1500 nm (see Fig. 13, paragraphs [0125]-[0126]).
Fukuzawa does not explicitly disclose three separate cases of metal layer material and wavelength of light. However, lacking criticality of the specific metal material and the corresponding wavelength of light irradiated on the photosensitive layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include any particular metal layer that works with all wavelengths from visible light to near-infrared, or only specific wavelengths, as disclosed by Fukuzawa in order to create a strong spin-orbit interaction effect.
Regarding claim 2, Fukuzawa discloses the optical sensor according to claim 1, wherein the first electrode (15, Figs. 5, 18) is a transparent electrode (paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 3, Fukuzawa discloses the optical sensor according to claim 1, wherein the photosensitive layer (1, 2, 3, Fig. 5, 18) includes a first ferromagnetic layer (1, Fig. 5, 18, paragraph [0070]), a second ferromagnetic layer (2, Fig. 5, 18, paragraph [0077]), and a spacer layer (3, Figs. 5, 18, paragraph [0081]) which is located between the first ferromagnetic layer (1, Figs. 5, 18) and the second ferromagnetic layer (2, Figs. 5, 18).
Regarding claim 5. Fukuzawa discloses the optical sensor according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the metal layer is equal to or greater than 100 A and equal to or less than 1000 A (paragraph [0141], thickness of wiring layer 50 can be equal to 10nm, which is 100 A).
Regarding claim 6, Fukuzawa discloses a receiver device (paragraphs [0009], [0027]) comprising the optical sensor according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Fukuzawa discloses a transceiver device (paragraphs [0021], [0027]) comprising the receiver device according to claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Fukuzawa discloses a communication system comprising the receiver device according to claim 6 (paragraphs [0022], [0027]).
Regarding claim 9, Fukuzawa discloses a terminal device comprising the receiver device according to claim 6 (paragraphs [0023], [0027]).
Regarding claim 10, Fukuzawa discloses an optical system comprising the optical sensor according to claim 1 (paragraphs [0024], [0027]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0020842 ("Ishida").
Regarding claim 4, Fukuzawa discloses the optical sensor according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that a thermal conductivity of the metal layer is equal to or less than 60 W/mK.
However, Ishida discloses that a thermal conductivity of the metal layer is equal to or less than 60 W/mK (paragraph [0060]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to choose a thermal conductivity as desired for a particular application in order to, for example, diffuse heat generated in the integrated circuit, or ensure a heat transfer coefficient that creates a strong spin-orbit interaction effect.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA T. TABA whose telephone number is (571)272-1583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/MONICA T TABA/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights