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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic benefit under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) with PCT/SG2021/050826 which in turn claims foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) with SG10202100459Y. The certified copy of foreign priority has been filed with the Office on June 16, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 26, 2023 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3-10, 13, 15-22, 25-26 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.
The term “substantially orthogonal” in Claims 1, 13, and 25 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially orthogonal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution Examiner has interpreted the phrase to mean “orthogonal”.
Claims 3-10 are rejected because they are dependent from Claim 1.
Claims 15-22 are rejected because they are dependent from Claim 13.
Claim 26 is rejected because they are dependent from Claim 25.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 18, 21, 22, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Reboud et al. US 20190067904.
Regarding Claim 1, Reboud teaches An optical device (Figs. 1A & 4B Paragraph 0068 “FIGS. 4A and 4B are schematic and partial top views of two different examples of a semiconductor structure 1 according to the first embodiment,”) comprising:
a substrate; (Fig. 1A, 2 Paragraph 0038 “The carrier layer 2 may be made of a material chosen from silicon, sapphire, borosilicate, silica, glass, quartz or any other suitable material.”)
a semiconductor layer on the substrate (Fig. 1A, 10 Paragraph 0039 “The semiconductor layer 10 is formed of a structured portion 11 that is suspended above the carrier layer 2”), the semiconductor layer having an initial tensile strain (It is inherent to every semiconductor layer that there will be an initial tensile strain even if that initial tensile strain is 0 since tensile strain is a measurable inherent property) and comprising a monolithic crossbeam structure defined therein (Fig. 4B, 30); and
an optical cavity optically coupled to the monolithic crossbeam structure (Paragraph 0072 “The optical cavity is bounded by two optical reflectors 40 each formed of two lateral half-reflectors 41 that are arranged in the tensioning arms 30”),
wherein the monolithic crossbeam structure comprises a first beam and a second beam (See annotated Fig. 4B below) arranged at least substantially orthogonal to each other (Fig. 4B shows that the first beam and the second beam are orthogonal to each other) and intersecting each other at an intersection region (Fig. 4B, 20 Paragraph 0071 “The central section 20 has an area that is here bounded by a circle passing through the junctions 32 between the adjacent tensioning arms 30.”), the intersection region being subjected to a tensile strain that is increased relative to the initial tensile strain. (Paragraph 0029 “the central section being tensilely stressed uniaxially (FIG. 4A) and biaxially (FIG. 4B);”)
PNG
media_image1.png
576
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Reboud teaches a plurality of etched regions (See annotated Fig. 4B below) are defined in the semiconductor layer to define the monolithic crossbeam structure (Fig. 4B shows that the etched regions are defined in the semiconductor layer to define the monolithic crossbeam structure), the plurality of etched regions being arranged along two orthogonal axes (Fig. 4B shows that the etched regions are arranged along two orthogonal axes)
Rebound does not teach that the etched regions are etched however, this recites a product by process limitation which does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The limitation, therefore cannot be relied upon to establish patentability over the prior art. See MPEP 2113.
PNG
media_image2.png
751
902
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Reboud teaches for each etched region of the plurality of etched regions, the etched region is defined by:
a first section having a curvature that tapers decreasingly in a direction towards the intersection region; (See annotated Fig. 4B below) and
a second section extending from the first section in a direction away from the intersection region. (See annotated Fig. 4B below)
PNG
media_image3.png
491
700
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Reboud teaches the optical cavity is defined by a pair of distributed Bragg reflectors arranged on opposite sides of the intersection region along a longitudinal axis of the first beam. (Paragraph 0072 “The optical cavity is bounded by two optical reflectors 40 each formed of two lateral half-reflectors 41 that are arranged in the tensioning arms 30 that extend along the longitudinal axis Δ2. The tensioning arms 30 that are arranged along the longitudinal axis Δ1 do not here include optical reflectors 40, but could however. The two lateral half-reflectors 41 of a given tensioning arm 30 are arranged on either side of the longitudinal axis Δ2 in order to allow the uneven mode TE01 to be reflected. The lateral half-reflectors 41 are here also Bragg mirrors, but could be cube-corner structures. They are therefore placed at a main separating angle θp substantially equal to the median scattering angle θpdiff of the uneven mode TE01.”)
Regarding Claim 9, Reboud teaches the optical cavity is further defined by an additional pair of distributed Bragg reflectors arranged on opposite sides of the intersection region along a longitudinal axis of the second beam. (Paragraph 0072 “The optical cavity is bounded by two optical reflectors 40 each formed of two lateral half-reflectors 41 that are arranged in the tensioning arms 30 that extend along the longitudinal axis Δ2. The tensioning arms 30 that are arranged along the longitudinal axis Δ1 do not here include optical reflectors 40, but could however.”)
Regarding Claim 10, Reboud teaches the monolithic crossbeam structure further comprises:
a first pair of stressing pads extended from the first beam and arranged on opposite sides of the intersection region along a longitudinal axis of the first beam; (See annotated Fig. 4B below) and
a second pair of stressing pads extended from the second beam and arranged on opposite sides of the intersection region along a longitudinal axis of the second beam. (See annotated Fig. 4B below)
PNG
media_image4.png
508
887
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Reboud teaches A method of forming an optical device comprising:
forming a semiconductor layer on a substrate, (Paragraph 0006 “To this end, one subject of the invention is a semiconductor structure including: [0007] a semiconductor layer made of a crystalline semiconductor compound, including a membrane suspended above a carrier layer, the suspended membrane being formed:”) the semiconductor layer that is formed having an initial tensile strain (It is inherent to every semiconductor layer that there will be an initial tensile strain even if that initial tensile strain is 0 since tensile strain is a measurable inherent property);
forming a monolithic crossbeam structure in the semiconductor layer (Fig. 4B Paragraph 0006 “the suspended membrane being formed: of a central section, which is tensilely stressed in a plane parallel to the carrier layer, and which forms a waveguide able to support at least one optical mode; and of a plurality of lateral sections, which are opposite one another with respect to the central section, and which are arranged so as to keep the central section suspended and tensilely stressed,”), wherein the monolithic crossbeam structure comprises a first beam and a second beam arranged at least substantially orthogonal to each other and intersecting each other at an intersection region, the intersection region being subjected to a tensile strain that is increased relative to the initial tensile strain; (See annotated Fig. 4B below Paragraph 0006 “the suspended membrane being formed: of a central section, which is tensilely stressed in a plane parallel to the carrier layer, and which forms a waveguide able to support at least one optical mode; and of a plurality of lateral sections, which are opposite one another with respect to the central section, and which are arranged so as to keep the central section suspended and tensilely stressed,”) and
optically coupling an optical cavity to the monolithic crossbeam structure. (Paragraph 0009 “According to the invention, the central section is designed to transmit in the direction of the optical reflectors at least one uneven-order mode. In addition, each of said optical reflectors is formed of two lateral half-reflectors, which are separate from one another and arranged on either side of a longitudinal axis of the lateral section in which they are placed, so as to at least partially reflect said uneven-order mode.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
576
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Reboud teaches optically coupling the optical cavity to the monolithic crossbeam structure comprises forming a pair of distributed Bragg reflectors arranged on opposite sides of the intersection region along a longitudinal axis of the first beam to define the optical cavity. (Paragraph 0072 “The optical cavity is bounded by two optical reflectors 40 each formed of two lateral half-reflectors 41 that are arranged in the tensioning arms 30”)
Regarding Claim 21, Reboud teaches optically coupling the optical cavity to the monolithic crossbeam structure further comprises forming an additional pair of distributed Bragg reflectors arranged on opposite sides of the intersection region along a longitudinal axis of the second beam to define the optical cavity. (Paragraph 0072 “The optical cavity is bounded by two optical reflectors 40 each formed of two lateral half-reflectors 41 that are arranged in the tensioning arms 30 that extend along the longitudinal axis Δ2. The tensioning arms 30 that are arranged along the longitudinal axis Δ1 do not here include optical reflectors 40, but could however.”)
Regarding Claim 22, Reboud teaches forming the monolithic crossbeam structure further comprises:
forming a first pair of stressing pads extended from the first beam and arranged on opposite sides of the intersection region along a longitudinal axis of the first beam; (Paragraph 0006 “the suspended membrane being formed: of a central section, which is tensilely stressed in a plane parallel to the carrier layer, and which forms a waveguide able to support at least one optical mode; and of a plurality of lateral sections, which are opposite one another with respect to the central section, and which are arranged so as to keep the central section suspended and tensilely stressed, the lateral sections having an average width larger than an average width of the central section;”) and
forming a second pair of stressing pads extended from the second beam and arranged on opposite sides of the intersection region along a longitudinal axis of the second beam. (Paragraph 0006 “the suspended membrane being formed: of a central section, which is tensilely stressed in a plane parallel to the carrier layer, and which forms a waveguide able to support at least one optical mode; and of a plurality of lateral sections, which are opposite one another with respect to the central section, and which are arranged so as to keep the central section suspended and tensilely stressed, the lateral sections having an average width larger than an average width of the central section;”)
PNG
media_image4.png
508
887
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 25, Reboud teaches A method of controlling an optical device comprising:
applying an input light to an intersection region of the optical device (Paragraph 0009 “According to the invention, the central section is designed to transmit in the direction of the optical reflectors at least one uneven-order mode.”) comprising:
a substrate; (Fig. 1A, 2 Paragraph 0038 “The carrier layer 2 may be made of a material chosen from silicon, sapphire, borosilicate, silica, glass, quartz or any other suitable material.”)
a semiconductor layer on the substrate (Fig. 1A, 10 Paragraph 0039 “The semiconductor layer 10 is formed of a structured portion 11 that is suspended above the carrier layer 2”), the semiconductor layer having an initial tensile strain (It is inherent to every semiconductor layer that there will be an initial tensile strain even if that initial tensile strain is 0 since tensile strain is a measurable inherent property) and comprising a monolithic crossbeam structure defined therein (Fig. 4B, 30); and
an optical cavity optically coupled to the monolithic crossbeam structure (Paragraph 0072 “The optical cavity is bounded by two optical reflectors 40 each formed of two lateral half-reflectors 41 that are arranged in the tensioning arms 30”),
wherein the monolithic crossbeam structure comprises a first beam and a second beam (See annotated Fig. 4B below) arranged at least substantially orthogonal to each other (Fig. 4B shows that the first beam and the second beam are orthogonal to each other) and intersecting each other at an intersection region (Fig. 4B, 20 Paragraph 0071 “The central section 20 has an area that is here bounded by a circle passing through the junctions 32 between the adjacent tensioning arms 30.”), the intersection region being subjected to a tensile strain that is increased relative to the initial tensile strain. (Paragraph 0029 “the central section being tensilely stressed uniaxially (FIG. 4A) and biaxially (FIG. 4B);”)
PNG
media_image1.png
576
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 7, 19 are rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Rebound in view of Petykiewicz J et al. Direct Bandgap Light Emission from Strained Germanium Nanowires Coupled with High-Q Nanophotonic Cavities. Nano Lett. 2016 Apr 13;16(4):2168-73.
Regarding Claim 7, Reboud teaches for each distributed Bragg reflector of the pair of distributed Bragg reflectors, a plurality of air trenches are defined in the distributed Bragg reflector (Paragraph 0046 “this example, each optical reflector 40 is a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) an example of which is illustrated in the aforementioned document Petykiewicz 2016. They are each formed of a plurality of circularly arcuate lines that are parallel to one another and formed by locally etching the layer of the tensioning arms 30.” Since the DBR isn’t filled after etching the trenches are filled with air),
Rebound does not teach a number of the plurality of air trenches is between 7 and 10.
However,
Petykiewicz teaches a number of the plurality of air trenches is between 7 and 10. (Page 2169 Second Column “The total distance between mirrors is ∼30 μm. 10-period DBR mirrors with a period of 380 nm”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the air trenches as taught by Rebound by changing the number of air trenches to between 7 and 10. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification due to the fact changing the number of layers in a distributed Bragg Reflector is recognized in the prior art as a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05 II) Changing the changing the number of layers in a distributed Bragg Reflector allows changes the reflectivity of the DBR. (see conclusion section for a citation demonstrating the feature to be a result effective variable. Pertinent art #2).
Regarding Claim 19, Reboud teaches forming the pair of distributed Bragg reflectors comprises defining, for each distributed Bragg reflector of the pair of distributed Bragg reflectors, a plurality of air trenches in the distributed Bragg reflector (Paragraph 0046 “this example, each optical reflector 40 is a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) an example of which is illustrated in the aforementioned document Petykiewicz 2016. They are each formed of a plurality of circularly arcuate lines that are parallel to one another and formed by locally etching the layer of the tensioning arms 30.” Since the DBR isn’t filled after etching the trenches are filled with air),
Rebound does not teach a number of the plurality of air trenches is between 7 and 10.
However,
Petykiewicz teaches a number of the plurality of air trenches is between 7 and 10. (Page 2169 Second Column “The total distance between mirrors is ∼30 μm. 10-period DBR mirrors with a period of 380 nm”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the air trenches as taught by Rebound by changing the number of air trenches to between 7 and 10. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification due to the fact changing the number of layers in a distributed Bragg Reflector is recognized in the prior art as a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05 II) Changing the changing the number of layers in a distributed Bragg Reflector allows changes the reflectivity of the DBR. (see conclusion section for a citation demonstrating the feature to be a result effective variable).
Claims 8, 20 are rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Rebound.
Regarding Claim 5, Reboud does not teach the first sections of adjacent etched regions of the plurality of etched regions define a neck region there between, wherein a minimum width of the neck region is between about 700 nm and about 2000 nm.
However,
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first section of the etched region as taught by Rebound because changing the shape of the etched region changes the shape of the semiconductor layer which would optimize the strain in the semiconductor layer (Rebound Paragraph 0043) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding Claim 8, Reboud does not teach a distance between each distributed Bragg reflector of the pair of distributed Bragg reflectors and the intersection region is between about 12 µm and about 20 µm.
However,
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance between the distributed Bragg reflector and the intersection region as taught by Rebound because modifying the distance would optimize the zones of concentration of mechanical stresses in the device (Paragraphs 0043-0047) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding Claim 20, Reboud teaches a distance between each distributed Bragg reflector of the pair of distributed Bragg reflectors and the intersection region is between about 12 µm and about 20 µm.
However,
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance between the distributed Bragg reflector and the intersection region as taught by Rebound because modifying the distance would optimize the zones of concentration of mechanical stresses in the device (Paragraphs 0043-0047) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding Claim 26, Reboud teaches the monolithic crossbeam structure of the optical device is suspended over the substrate of the optical device, (Fig. 1A shows the monolithic crossbeam structure is suspended over the substrate)
Rebound does not teach decreasing a temperature of the optical device.
However,
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the temperature of the optical device as taught by Rebound because changing the temperature (changing the modified thing) would optimize the diffusion length of the charge carries which must be taken into account to optimize the dimension of the device (See pertinent art #1 below) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claims 15-17 are rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Rebound in view of Rebound et al. US 20190044308 (Herein after referred to as Rebound2)
Regarding Claim 15, Reboud teaches forming the monolithic crossbeam structure comprises defining a plurality of regions in the semiconductor layer to form the monolithic crossbeam structure, the plurality of regions being arranged along two orthogonal axes. (See annotated Fig. 4B below)
Rebound does not teach the regions are etched.
However,
Rebound2 teaches the regions are etched. (Paragraph 0072 “The structured portion 11 is produced using conventional steps of lithography then of etching the semiconductor layer 10.” Fig. 6 shows the formation of the a similar shape as Rebound formed through etching. Figs. 1A and 1B shows the formation of the structured portion over the substrate using etching)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the regions as taught by Rebound by having them be etched regions as disclosed by Rebound2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to separate the semiconductor layer into separate portions. (Rebound2 Paragraph 0077)
PNG
media_image5.png
751
902
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Reboud teaches defining the plurality of etched regions comprises defining, for each etched region of the plurality of etched regions, a first section having a curvature that tapers decreasingly in a direction towards the intersection region, and a second section extending from the first section in a direction away from the intersection region. (See annotated Fig. 4B below)
PNG
media_image3.png
491
700
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Reboud teaches the first sections of adjacent etched regions of the plurality of etched regions define a neck region therebetween, wherein a minimum width of the neck region is between about 700 nm and about 2000 nm.
However,
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first section of the etched region as taught by Rebound because changing the shape of the etched region changes the shape of the semiconductor layer which would optimize the strain in the semiconductor layer (Rebound Paragraph 0043) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200358254 (teaches many features found in Claim 1. Paragraph 0062 teaches the relationship between temperature and diffusion length)
https://web.archive.org/web/20170702191054/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Bragg_reflector. (“Increasing the number of pairs in a DBR increases the mirror reflectivity and increasing the refractive index contrast between the materials in the Bragg pairs increases both the reflectivity and the bandwidth.”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN SUTTON KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/STEPHEN SUTTON KOTTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828