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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Per applicants’ argument on page 3, regarding the two references, Ishimura and Tsumori, being different specific devices, it is true that one is a backlit device and one is an edge lit device but both are within the same category of devices. Both devices are semiconductor devices that manipulate incoming light in some way, so it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to look at both references and combine different features from them. They do not fundamentally serve different purposes, though they manipulate the incoming light in different manners and location, they both still take incoming light and do something with it, hence why they are classified in similar areas.
Per the applicants’ argument on page 3, regarding Ishimura not being a reflective section with incident light onto the light absorption, per the applicants’ claims “by reflection or refraction,” it is clarified in the rejection below that the light from outside the device of Ishimura enters into the device at the end-face region, element 17 on substrate element 11 of figure 1 in Ishimura. This light upon entry into a new material with a differing index of refraction, as shown in the secondary reference Tsumori via figure 3 and light traveling from element 1 to element 4, upon incidence with an edge of element 4 refracts into the device, is read onto the primary reference where incident light onto the side of element 4 of Tsumori would be read onto incident light onto element 17 of Ishimura, thus light entering the device is refracted due to a change in index of refraction.
Per applicants’ argument on page 4, paragraph 2, regarding element 12 of Ishimura not being a first reflective layer, the office finds this argument unpersuasive. Element 12 both reflects light and transmits light, this does not negate the reflective properties of the layer, thus element 12 is still considered a first reflective layer.
It is recommended that the applicant describe the process of incident light into the first reflective layer and how light gets to the light absorption layer to further clarify their device. If it must only be from a reflected angle, or a certain refractive angle, then it is recommended that applicant detail such mechanisms in the claim. Otherwise, as the rejection stands, it is argued that the two pieces of art in tandem read onto the applicants’ claims. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
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) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimura et al (US 20090218595 A1) in view of Tsumori et al (US 20030063651 A1).
Ishimura et al teaches
[claim 1] An end-face incident type semiconductor light receiving device having a first light absorbing region on a main surface side of a semiconductor substrate (figure 1, paragraph 0027, where element 11 is the substrate, the end-face is the face with element 17 on it, element 13 is the first absorption region on a different side of the substrate [element 11] and considered to be the main surface side of the substrate)
comprising: a first reflective section, being on the main surface side, for causing light transmitted through the first light absorbing region to enter the first light absorbing region (figure 1, paragraph 0027, “light transmitted through the first light absorbing region” means the light as already gone through the first absorbing region, element 13. For element 12 to cause that light “to enter the first light absorbing region” necessarily corresponds to the prior art light which has already gone through 13 and reflected off element 15 and then again reflected off of element 12 back downward, see the light arrow in Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0031-0032. Some of the light is reflected off element 12 and back into element 11, but other light passes through element 12 and thus “causes” light to enter into the first absorbing region [element 13]),
and a single second reflective section for causing the light reflected by the first reflective section and transmitted through the first light absorbing region to reflect directly toward the first light absorbing region (figure 1, paragraph 0027, element 15 is the second reflective section which has light transmitted through the first absorption region [element 13] and then reflected off the second reflective region back towards the first absorption region [element 13]).
[claim 2] The end-face incident type semiconductor light receiving device according to claim 1; the second reflective section reflects the light incident from the first light absorbing region toward the first light absorbing region by the shortest path (figure 1, paragraph 0027, where the incident light comes orthogonal to the first absorption layer and the second reflective section and reflects back with an angle of incidence being 0 degrees, thus traversing the shortest path between the second reflective region [element 15] and the first absorption layer [element 13]).
However, Ishimura does not specifically disclose
[claim 1] wherein light incident from the end-face of the semiconductor substrate is incident on the first light absorbing region by reflection or refraction.
However, Tsumori et al does teach
[claim 1] wherein light incident from the end-face of the semiconductor substrate is incident on the first light absorbing region by reflection or refraction (figure 3, paragraph 0049, incident light from element 1 travels through air and comes into contact with the surface of element 4, thus refracting due to the different index of refractions before hitting the first absorbing layer [element 5]. Specifically, the light refracts before hitting any other layer as seen by the change in angle of an incident light beam).
The refraction of light at an interface between air and a material at which light enters the device as taught by Tsumori is incorporated as a refraction of light at an interface between air and a material at which light enters the device Ishimura (see Fig. 1 between element 17 and air at which light enters the device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Ishimura et al to incorporate the teachings of Tsumori in order to refract light before entering a resonance chamber (as shown in Ishimura) to isolate a specific wavelength considering light refracts at different angles depending on the wavelength, which will further increase wavelength stability (this is described by Ishimura – see paragraph 12).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW ZABEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5PM 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, Jeff W Natalini can be reached at 572-272-2266. 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.
/ANDREW ZABEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/SAMUEL PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights