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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 6-7, 10-13, 17-18, 21-23, 25, 28-31, 34 and 38 are pending. Claims 10-12, 18, 29-31 and 34 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 6-7, 13, 17, 21-23, 25, 28 and 38 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 contains the limitations “wherein the
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.
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, 6-7, 13, 17, 21-23, 25 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll (US 2013/0316491) in view of Meyers et al. (US 4,977,097).
Regarding claim 1, Carroll discloses an optical power converter device in Figures 1 and 2 comprising:
a semiconductor waveguide structure (abstract, [153] and [60]) having a first end facet configured to receive an incident light beam ([117] and [153]), and one or more light absorbing layers (106, [80]-[81]) with a total thickness of substantially less than 100 nm ([57], see thicknesses in Table 1, which includes the thickness range of 10 nm-60nm, which reads on “substantially less than 100nm” as claimed) and configured to absorb light guided by the waveguide structure (abstract, [80]-[81] and [153]); and
a cathode (104) and an anode (108) in contact with substantially the entire length of the waveguide structure in the direction of propagation of light from the first end facet for outputting generated electrical power (Figures 1-2 and [79]-[81]),
wherein the optical power converter device operates in a photovoltaic mode such that a positive voltage is generated between the anode and cathode in use (abstract and [12]).
Carroll additionally discloses that the waveguide structure comprises an n-type cladding region, a p-type cladding region, and a core region between the n-type and p- type cladding regions for confining and guiding light ([68]-[69]); and wherein the cathode and anode are electrically connected to the respective n-type and p-type cladding regions of the waveguide structure ([68]-[69] and [99]). Carroll additionally discloses that the n-type and p-type cladding regions ([68]-[69]) are formed of or comprise one or more semiconductor layers ([67]-[69]), but Carroll does not explicitly disclose that the n-type and p-type cladding regions are formed of or comprise one or more semiconductor layers having a band-gap energy substantially higher than that of the core region, the one or more light absorbing layers and a photon energy of the incident light beam.
Meyers discloses an optical power converter in Figures 1-2 comprising an n-type (16) and p-type cladding regions (12) formed of or comprising one or more semiconductor layers having a band-gap energy substantially higher than that of a core region (14) which includes one or more light absorbing layers (14) and a photon energy of an incident light beam (column 3 lines 39-column 4 line 49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Carroll such that the n-type and p-type cladding regions are formed of or comprise one or more semiconductor layers having a band-gap energy substantially higher than that of the core region, the one or more light absorbing layers and a photon energy of the incident light beam, as taught by Meyers, because the use of wide band gap "window" semiconductor materials of one carrier type as a barrier layer on a more narrow band gap "absorber" semiconductor material increases the amount of radiation absorbed and the electrical current generated in the device and minimizes recombination (Meyers, column 1 lines 24-65 and column 4 lines 38-49).
Regarding claim 6, modified Carroll discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Carroll discloses the structure claimed in claim 1 above and thus necessarily displays the claimed properties of “wherein the
As discussed in MPEP 2112.01, “When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Regarding claim 7, modified Carroll discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Carroll additionally discloses that the one or more light absorbing layers spatially overlap a guided mode of the waveguide structure ([40], [153] and Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 13, modified Carroll discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Carroll additionally discloses that the waveguide structure comprises a series of epitaxially stacked p-n junctions, each p-n junction containing at least one of the one or more light absorbing layers ([69]-[70], [143] and [103]-[104]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Carroll discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Carroll additionally discloses that one of the cathode and anode is a top contact that contacts a top surface of the waveguide structure with respect to the growth direction (see epitaxy, [143]) of the waveguide structure (top contact 208 contacts a top surface of the waveguide structure, [84] and Figure 2); and wherein: the top contact (208) is provided as a strip having a width that extends, at least partially, across the lateral width of the waveguide structure (See circumferential top contact 108/208 in Figures 1 and 2 which reads on extending across the lateral width of the waveguide structure).
Regarding claim 21, modified Carroll discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Carroll additionally discloses a top contact that has a width that is substantially constant along its length (Figures 1 and 4, circumference of layers is constant along the length which reads on the width).
Regarding claim 22, modified Carroll discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Carroll additionally discloses that the waveguide structure further comprises a second end facet, arranged substantially opposite and/or perpendicular to the direction of light propagation in the waveguide structure (Figures 9 and 11, bottom end facet).
Regarding claim 23, modified Carroll discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Carroll additionally discloses that a top contact (304) extends between the first end facet and the second end facet (Figures 1-4 and [87]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Carroll discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Carroll additionally discloses that the first end facet comprises a coating for reducing the reflectance of the first end facet for the wavelength of the incident light beam ([157], see SiO2 coating layer on the optical fiber core which reads on a reflection reducing coating).
Regarding claim 38, modified Carroll discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. The device of Carroll is capable of being “used as a photonic integrated circuit” and thus satisfies the claim limitations. A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll (US 2013/0316491) in view of Meyers et al. (US 4,977,097), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Wertsberger et al. (US 2014/0077322).
Regarding claim 28, modified Carroll discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Carroll additionally discloses an array of said waveguide structures (1100) arranged on a substrate (1104) (Figure 11 and [135]-[138]), wherein each waveguide structure has a cathode and anode connected thereto ([135]-[138]), but Carroll does not explicitly disclose that the cathodes and anodes of each respective waveguide structure are electrically connected in series or in parallel.
Wertsberger discloses an array of photovoltaic waveguide structures, wherein each waveguide structure has a cathode and anode connected thereto and the cathodes and anodes of each respective waveguide structure are electrically connected in series or in parallel (abstract and [91]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of modified Carroll such that the cathodes and anodes of each respective waveguide structure are electrically connected in series or in parallel, as taught by Wertsberger, in order to increase the power output capacity of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot as a result of the new grounds of rejection and the addition of the Meyers reference.
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 LINDSEY A BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/LINDSEY A BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728