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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claim 5 specifically claim 5 states the composite charge layer5 comprises and undoped InP the specification 14a is only described as a P-type InP (page 11) There is no discussion of a .
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5,9, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 5,9, and 13 ,Though supported by the original claims the specification gives no indication of how to form a composite charge layer with an undoped InP page 11 states that both layer in the composite are P-type and there is no discussion of how to implement a “undoped” InP in the composite. The specification specifically states At the same time, the present invention uses the composite charge layer 14, which comprises two layers (a P-type Ino.52Alo.48As charge layer 14a and a P-type InP charge layer 14b) with a heterogeneous interface, to ensure zero edge electric field of the sidewall of the second M-layer 15b at bottom for suppressing edge breakdown. Thus, using a undoped InP is not supported when applicant has not shown zero edge electric field of the side wall suppressing breakdown with a undoped InP composite layer.
Thus, even though the recitation of undoped InP was in the original claims it is inconsistent with the written description provided as a totality of the disclosure. Since applicant acknowledges in the specification improvement only for the P-type InP composite. Thus, applicant does not have adequate written description for the composite charge layer comprising an undoped InP.
As to claim 11 applicants does not have support for arbitrary thicknesses for the Multiplication layers. The claim now the multiplication layer could have the same thicknesses which is not supported the original disclosure only recites having different thicknesses. And no where contemplates embodiments with the same thickness for the Multiplication layers. Even though claim 11 covers different thicknesses it now encompasses embodiments with the same thickness which are not supported as such claims 11-14 are new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 11-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Naseem (2022).
As to claim 11-12 and 14, Naseem teaches comprising an epitaxial-layers structure including, from top to bottom, a P-type contact layer (figure 1 a p-contact), a P-type window layer (p window figure 1), a P-type graded absorber layer (p-graded absorber), a composite charge layer (p-field control InAlAs and P field control P InP see also 7894 column 2 stating A composite charge layer (In0.52Al0.48As/InP) design is adopted to ensure that the electric field at the sidewall of the bottom(2nd) M-layer becomes exactly zero and the phenomenon of edge breakdown is suppressed [16].) a first M-layer (1st I Multiplication) a P-type charge layer (p charge layer), a second M-layer (2nd Multiplication layer) an N-type charge layer (N-charge layer), a transport (I InP transport), and an N-type contact layer (N contact)
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) 1-4, 6, 10-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naseem (cited on Ids) in view Naseem cited on 892 (2021).
As to claims 1, 3, 6, 10 , 11,12, and 14 Naseem teaches comprising an epitaxial-layers structure including, from top to bottom, a P-type contact layer (figure 1 a p-contact), a P-type window layer (p window figure 1), a P-type graded absorber layer (p-graded absorber), a composite charge layer (p-field control InAlAs and P field control P InP see also 7894 column 2 stating A composite charge layer (In0.52Al0.48As/InP) design is adopted to ensure that the electric field at the sidewall of the bottom(2nd) M-layer becomes exactly zero and the phenomenon of edge breakdown is suppressed [16].) a first M-layer (1st I Multiplication) a P-type charge layer (p charge layer), a second M-layer (2nd Multiplication layer) an N-type charge layer (N-charge layer), a transport (I InP transport), and an N-type contact layer (N contact)
Naseem indicates the second Multiplication is thin relative to the first. Further applicant has embodiment with multiple multiplication thus one could arbitrarily define the multiplication layers to meet the thickness size by defining third and fourth Multiplication layers. The claim does not require the elements be in direct contact with one another thus defining third or third and fourth multiplication from the first and second would still read on the claim .
However, assuming arguendo that the claim precludes this Naseem but does not explicitly state, wherein each of the first and second M-layers are of different thicknesses and have a combined thickness of less than 1 micron to suppress edge breakdown to relieve the pressure caused by dark current increase owing to M-layer reduction to obtain high-speed performance.
Naseem cited on the 892 teaches the figure 8 that the thickness of the 1st and 2nd multiplication are different (60:88nm and 200:300 nm) as well as the absorber being 300nm.
Both of which embodiment the multiplication layers have different thickness and the sum of the thicknesses is less than 1 micron.
Thus absent some unexpected results it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided the thickness of as described Naseem 2021 to as suggest by Naseem 2022 7894 column 1: To meet the APD bandwidth requirements, we further reduced the absorber and total M-layer thicknesses, as described in our previous work.
b. As to claim 2, Naseem teaches the composite charge layer comprises two layers of materials having heterogeneous contact surfaces[[,]] and wherein said composite charge layer selectively wet chemical etched to reduce [[the]] an edge field on [[the]] a side wall of said second M- layer to zero. Stating: A composite charge layer (In0.52Al0.48As/InP) design is adopted to ensure that the electric field at the sidewall of the bottom(2nd) M-layer becomes exactly zero and the phenomenon of edge breakdown is suppressed [16]. Selective chemical wet etching is used between these two layers to precisely etch away the charge layer above the M-layers to obtain a zero E-field at the edge. The simulated E-field distribution in such a structure will be discussed later and is illustrated in Fig. 1(b).
Thus, even though the claim recites produce by process and an intended outcome, both of which are treated as non-limiting, Naseem 2022 actually teaches the process and the outcome.
c. As to claim 4 Naseem teaches wherein, said epitaxial-layers structure is grown on a semiconductor substrate selected from a group consisting of a semi-insulating semiconductor substrate and a conductive semiconductor substrate (S.I. InP substrate).
d. As to claim 5, Naseem teaches wherein said P-type contact layer is of P+-type indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs); said P-type window layer is of P+-type indium phosphide (InP).
Allowable Subject Matter
If applicant can show that the composite charge layer comprising the P-type layer and undoped layer was originally supported the claims would be allowable. However, the specification makes no discussion of an undoped layer composite InP or a discussion that something other than P-type InP could be used and the device still function with improved results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While applicant goes through the Shi reference and particularly points out elements not taught there is no corresponding discussion for Naseem. Blanket assertions with out point to specific elements cannot be found persuasive. It is recognized Naseem may not explicitly teach the thickness but Naseem anticipates the newly added claim 11 verbatim. Applicant is reminded applicant must clearly point out the patentable novelty and how it overcomes the art of record. Mere boiler plate language is not helpful or constructive.
With respect to the composite charge layer including undoped InP while supported by the claims it is not the support in the rest of the disclosure (the specification). In fact, being undoped would contradict the specification page 11 indicates the benefit is only described for both layers being p-type. Thus, it appears that original claims were in error.
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 MATTHEW L REAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-2408. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
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, William F. Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MATTHEW L. REAMES/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/MATTHEW L REAMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896