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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12 and 20 – 22 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.
Regarding claims 11, 12, 21 and 22:
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the alternating layers as claimed. The closest relevant prior art of record, Shiota et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2007/0291809 A1), teaches InAlAs 16 over InGaAsP 15 in fig. 10, but fails to teach or suggest at least InAlAs or InGaAsP being alternatively laminated layers as claimed.
Regarding claim 20:
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed doping concentration. The closest relevant prior art of record, Shiota et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2007/0291809 A1), teaches the contact layer 13 but fails to teach or suggest the claimed concentration.
Thus, with no teaching from the prior art, and without the benefit of applicant's teachings, there is no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the prior art of record in a manner so as to create the claimed invention.
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.
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 9, 10, 13 – 19, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiota et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2007/0291809 A1).
In Re claims 9 and 15, ‘809 teaches a semiconductor element comprising:
a waveguide structure comprising:
an InP substrate (1, pars. 0029 – 0030);
a multi-quantum well (4, par. 0040) on the InP substrate;
an anti-diffusion layer on the multi-quantum well, wherein the anti-diffusion layer comprises a plurality of layers (9 and 11), and wherein a layer among the plurality of layers comprises Al, In, and As and is doped with carbon (11, pars. 0030); and
a p-type InP layer on the anti-diffusion layer, wherein the p-type InP layer is doped with Zn (6, pars. 0005, 0008, 0030).
Furthermore, ‘809 teaches that a laser and EAM are formed in the device (pars. 0030 – 0032).
‘809 is explicitly silent to the anti-diffusion layers that lattice-match InP and electrodes on a front surface and a rear surface of the waveguide structure.
However, it is well known in the art to lattice match layers such as InAlAs, InGaAlAs and InGaAs upon an InP layer so as to allow for a strain free device that minimizes defects in manufacture and to use electrodes on a front surface and rear surface of the waveguide structure to apply a voltage to operate the laser and EAM.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the lattice match at least the anti-diffusion layers to that of the InP substrate so as to allow for a strain free device that minimizes defects in manufacture and to apply electrodes as claimed to two surfaces (front and rear in name) so as to apply voltage to the laser and EAM for operation of the device as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claim 10, ‘809 teaches the structure of claim 9, but is silent to wherein a layer thickness of the anti-diffusion layer is equal to or greater than 50 nm and equal to or less than 400 nm. However, it is well known in the art to set the layer thicknesses base on a desired wavelength of light to be operated through a layered device. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a layer thickness of the anti-diffusion layer to be equal to or greater than 50 nm and equal to or less than 400 nm so as to allow the device to operate in a desired wavelength band and for the anti-diffusion layer to interact with desired wavelength since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In Re claim 13, ‘809 teaches wherein a doping concentration of the carbon is equal to or greater than 1 x 1017 cm-3 and equal to or less than 1 x 1018 cm-3 (par. 0027).
In Re claim 14, ‘809 teaches wherein the InP substrate is an n-type InP substrate (par. 0034), and wherein the semiconductor structure further comprises a p-type contact layer on the p-type InP layer (13, pars. 0005 teaches that Zn is p-type, 0034).
In Re claim 16, ‘809 teaches wherein the semiconductor element comprises an electroabsorption-type modulator (19, par. 0034).
In Re claim 17, ‘809 teaches buried semi-insulating layers (16, 17, 21, 22) on both side surfaces of the waveguide structure (fig. 11).
In Re claim 18, ‘809 teaches wherein the buried semi- insulating layers comprise InP (par. 0032).
In Re claim 19, ‘809 teaches a p-type contact layer (13) on the p-type InP layer, wherein the p-type contact layer is doped with Zn.
In Re claim 23, ‘809 teaches wherein a doping concentration of the carbon is equal to or greater than 1 x 1017 cm-3 and equal to or less than 1x 1018 cm-3 (par. 0027).
In Re claim 24, ‘809 teaches wherein the InP substrate is an n-type InP substrate (par. 0030), and wherein the waveguide structure further comprises a p-type contact layer on the p-type InP layer (7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874