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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claim 1. New claim 20 has been added. Claims 2,4 and 10-17 stand as withdrawn. Claims 3 and 18-19 stand as cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,5-9 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been withdrawn in light of the cancellations of claims
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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.
Claims 1,5, 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caër et al. (hereinafter Caër) (US 20190131772 A1) in view of Sun et al. (hereinafter Sun) (US 20060102916 A1) and Vieira et al. (hereinafter Vieira) (US 20030015710 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Caër discloses in Fig. 3,
A device for regrowth of a structure lattice-matched with InP [20] (Para. [0082]), wherein the device consists of:
- a Si substrate [200] (Para. [0070]),
- an interface layer of SiO2 [230] (Para. [0082]) disposed on the Si substrate [200],
- a bonding layer [107] (Para [0079]) disposed in direct contact with the interface layer [230], and
- a regrowth layer [108] (Paras. [0075,0078]) disposed in direct contact with the bonding layer [107], said regrowth layer being made of InP (Para. [0078]).
Caër fails to disclose,
wherein the structure is lattice-matched to InP within 0.1%,
the interface layer of SiO2 disposed in direct contact with the Si substrate and
the bonding layer being made of AlInAs
Sun discloses,
a InAlAs layer [20] bonded to InP [10] (Para. [0038]) lattice-matched to InP within 0.1% (Paras. [0013,0042])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the InAlAs material lattice matched to InP as shown in Sun as the bonding layer material in the device of Caër for the purpose of using a material with precise lattice-matching to the InP material. (Paras. [0013,0038])
Caër in view of Sun fails to disclose,
the interface layer of SiO2 disposed in direct contact with the Si substrate
Vieira discloses in Fig. 2,
An interface layer [28] of silicon oxide (Para. [0029]) disposed in direct contact between an Si Substrate [22] (Para. [0029]) and an overlying buffer layer [24] (Para. [0028])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the single interface layer silicon oxide structure of Vieira with the interface layer of Caër for the purpose of relieving strain attributed to mismatches in lattice constants of the substrate and overlying buffer layer. (Vieira Para. [0029])
Regarding claim 5, Caër in view of Sun and Vieira as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Caër,
A photonic device (Paras. [0006,0056]) for combining a silicon "Si" material and a III-V material [Fig. 3] comprising:
the device for regrowth of the structure lattice-matched with InP [10] according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above)
- an inferior cladding [105a below 105] on the regrowth layer [108] of said device for regrowth, said inferior cladding comprising at least a first III-V material layer (Paras. [0078,0082]),
- at least an active layer [105] on the inferior cladding [150a below 105],
- a superior cladding [105a above 105] on the active layer [105], said superior cladding comprising at least a second III-V material layer (Paras. [0078,0082]).
Regarding claim 6, Caër in view of Sun and Vieira as applied to claim 5 above further discloses in Caër Fig. 3,
wherein the active layer [105] is a Multiple Quantum Well layer (Paras. [0067,0078])
Regarding claim 20, Caër in view of Sun and Vieira as applied to claim 5 above further discloses in Caër,
where the interface layer of SiO2 [230 Fig. 2] comprises a silicon waveguide [222] (Paras. [0058,0070])
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caër in view of Sun and Vieira as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of over Yu (WO 2019220297 A1) Examiner notes that the US Publication (US 20210111301 A1) of Yu will be used in the claim mapping of prior art. (See attached PTO-892 form for list of cited documents).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Caër discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 5 above but fails to disclose,
Wherein the active layer is an absorption layer
Yu discloses,
An active stack [102] (Para. [0089]) that can be used as a vertical junction electro-absorption modulator (Para. [0088])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the electro-optically active absorbing stack or Yu in place of the active stack of Caër for the purpose of allowing modulation of an intensity of a laser beam with applied voltage with the device of Caër.
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Caër discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 7 above further discloses in Yu,
where a total thickness of the inferior cladding, the active layer, and the superior cladding is higher than 1µm (Table on Page 6 righthand column of Yu) [layers 2,3,4,5] (Para. [0116])
The active stack of Yu is implemented in place of the active stack of Caër, therefore the layer thicknesses disclosed in Yu are cited.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caër in view of Sun, Vieira and Yu as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hiraka et al. (hereinafter Hiraka) (US 20040071424 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Caër discloses the deice outlined in the rejection of claim 7 above but fails to disclose,
a surface roughness of the superior cladding.
Hiraka discloses in Fig. 1,
a cladding layer [1a] with a surface roughness of less than 1 nanometer (Para. [0025])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a surface roughness of a cladding layer as disclosed by Hiraka in to the superior cladding in the modified device of Caër for the purpose of reducing surface roughness to remove scattering at the optical interface between the layers. (Hiraka Para. [0025])
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828