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 .
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement among inventions species, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 9/10/24, is hereby withdrawn and claims 8 and 16 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ZILKIE et al. (US 2022/0200244, hereinafter, Zilkie.)
In regard to claims 1 and 9, in figs. 1A and 2E, Zilkie discloses a photodetector comprising:
a substrate, or GaAs substrate (para [0060]);
a first optical absorber 145 (para [0062]) disposed in the substrate along a direction of propagation of an optical signal through the substrate, wherein the first optical absorber is offset in the substrate according to an offset of the optical signal in a direction orthogonal to the direction of propagation (fig. 2A); and
a second optical absorber, also, 145 (fig. 1A) disposed in the substrate along the direction of propagation of the optical signal, wherein the second optical absorber is offset in the substrate according to the offset of the optical signal in the direction orthogonal to the direction of propagation.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, 10, 12, wherein the substrate comprises a first end, a second end opposite the first end, a third end, and a fourth end opposite the third end, wherein the substrate is arranged such that the optical signal enters the substrate through the third end and exits the substrate through the fourth end, wherein the first optical absorber is offset such that the first optical absorber is closer to the first end than the second end, and wherein the second optical absorber is offset such that the second optical absorber is closer to the second end than the first end (fig. 1A.)
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilkie as applied to claims 1 and 9 above.
Regarding claims 24 and 26, Zilkie discloses all of the claimed limitations as mentioned above. Zilkie also further shows the dimension/thickness/length of the of the optical signal at element 115 (para [0062]), except the exact length as currently claimed.
Thus, Zelkie indeed recognizes that there is a need for having the length at some values. The length is therefore a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, as Zelkie has identified the dimension as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a dimension of the elements as claimed in order to achieve the desired connections among the layers. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed dimension is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed inventions.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 14-16 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 prior art does not disclose first doped region disposed in the substrate such that the first doped region contacts the first optical absorber; and
a second doped region disposed in the substrate such that the second doped region contacts the first optical absorber, wherein the second doped region has an opposite doping relative to the first doped region, and wherein a length of the first doped region is shorter than a length of the second doped region.
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN W HA whose telephone number is (571)272-1707. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8:00AM-6:00PM.
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, WAEL FAHMY can be reached at (571)-272-1705. 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.
/NATHAN W HA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814