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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3,6,8 and 18 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, claims 3 and 18 read “wherein the InGaP layer is characterized by a doping concentration >= 1e18”. Examiner notes that the value of “1e18” is not given a unit of measurement that described what value the concentration number is referring to. Without this label the specific unit that the number of “1e18” is referring to is indefinite and unclear.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the limitations of “wherein the InGaP layer is characterized by a doping concentration >= 1e18” as described in claims 3 and 18 will be understood as referring to a doping concentration value in units of cm3 as shown in the prior art rejections of claims 3 and 18 below.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 reads “wherein the passive waveguide structure comprises a dielectric layer comprising at least one of SiN,SiNOx,TiO2,(doped) SiO2, LiNbO3 and AlN”. Examiner notes that the use of the term “at least one” followed by the term “and” raises confusion on if the dielectric layer must include at least one of each option listed or must only include a single one of the options listed to meet the limitations of the claim.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the claim of “wherein the passive waveguide structure comprises a dielectric layer comprising at least one of SiN,SiNOx,TiO2,(doped) SiO2, LiNbO3 and AlN” will be understood to read “wherein the passive waveguide structure comprises a dielectric layer comprising at least one of SiN,SiNOx,TiO2,(doped) SiO2, LiNbO3 or AlN”
Similarly, regarding claim 8, claim 8 reads “wherein metallization for a contact made to the InGaP layer comprises at least one of Pd,Ge,Au, and Ni.” Examiner notes that the use of the term “at least one” followed by the term “and” raises confusion on if the metallization must include at least one of each option listed or must only include a single one of the options listed to meet the limitations of the claim.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the claim of “wherein metallization for a contact made to the InGaP layer comprises at least one of Pd,Ge,Au, and Ni.” will be understood to read “wherein metallization for a contact made to the InGaP layer comprises at least one of Pd,Ge,Au, or Ni.””
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-4,6, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al. (hereinafter Cha) (US 20190229492 A1) in view of Floyd (US 5920766 A)
Regarding claim 1, Cha discloses in Fig. 1,
A heterogenous device [Fig. 1] (Para. [0016]) comprising:
a passive waveguide structure [120] (Para. [0020]) attached to a substrate [100] (Para. [0016]); the passive waveguide structure comprising a dielectric layer [130] (Para. [0021]); and
an active waveguide structure [262,252,243,232,222,212] (Paras. [0023,0044,0049]) attached to a top surface of the passive waveguide structure [120] (Para. [0049]); the active waveguide structure comprising a quantum well layer [242] (Paras. [0024,0026]) overlying a bonding contact layer [262] (Para. [0023]);
wherein the bonding contact layer [262] provides n-contact functionality (Para. [0023]).
Cha fails to disclose,
the bonding contact layer comprising an InGaP layer
Floyd discloses in Fig. 1,
a bonding layer [124] comprising an n-doped InGaP layer (Col. 3, lines 55-58)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the bonding layer of Floyd as the bonding contact layer of Cha for the purpose of allowing fusion bonding of the passive and active structures of Cha. (Floyd Col. 4, lines 52-67)
Regarding claim 2, Cha in view of Floyd as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Floyd,
wherein the InGaP layer [124] is characterized by a thickness between 50nm and 500nm (Col. 3, lines 55-58).
Regarding claim 3, Cha in view of Floyd as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Floyd,
wherein the InGaP layer [124] is characterized by a doping concentration >=1e18 (Col. 3, lines 55-58).
Regarding claim 4, Cha in view of Floyd as applied to claim 1 above further discloses
wherein the InGaP layer [Floyd 124 Fig. 1 in place of Cha 262 Fig. 1] (Floyd Col. 3, lines 55-58) acts as a bonding layer (Cha Para. [0049]) between a bottom surface of the active structure [Cha bottom of 152 Fig. 1] and the top surface of the passive waveguide structure [Cha top of 120 Fig. 1] (Cha Para. [0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Cha in view of Floyd as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Cha,
wherein the passive waveguide structure [120] comprises a dielectric layer [130] (Para. [0021]) comprising at least one of SiN (Para. [0021]), SiNOx, TiO2, Ta2O5, (doped) SiO2, LiNbO3 and AIN.
Regarding claim 15, Cha discloses,
A heterogenous device [Fig. 1] (Para. [0016]) comprising:
a passive waveguide structure [120] (Para. [0020]) attached to a substrate [100] (Para. [0016]); the passive waveguide structure comprising a semiconductor layer (Para. [0020]) and
an active waveguide structure [262,252,243,232,222,212] (Paras. [0023,0044,0049]) attached to a top surface of the passive waveguide structure [120] (Para. [0049]); the active waveguide structure comprising a quantum well layer [242] (Paras. [0024,0026]) overlying a bonding contact layer [262] (Para. [0023]);
wherein the bonding contact layer [262] provides n-contact functionality (Para. [0023]).
Cha fails to disclose,
the bonding contact layer comprising an InGaP layer
Floyd discloses in Fig. 1,
a bonding layer [124] comprising an n-doped InGaP layer (Col. 3, lines 55-58)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the bonding layer of Floyd as the bonding contact layer of Cha for the purpose of allowing fusion bonding of the passive and active structures of Cha. (Floyd Col. 4, lines 52-67)
Regarding claim 17, Cha in view of Floyd as applied to claim 15 above further discloses in Floyd,
wherein the InGaP layer [124] is characterized by a thickness between 50nm and 500nm (Col. 3, lines 55-58).
Regarding claim 18, Cha in view of Floyd as applied to claim 15 above further discloses in Floyd,
wherein the InGaP layer [124] is characterized by a doping concentration >=1e18 (Col. 3, lines 55-58).
Regarding claim 19, Cha in view of Floyd a as applied to claim 15 above further discloses,
wherein the InGaP layer [Floyd 124 Fig. 1 in place of Cha 262 Fig. 1] (Floyd Col. 3, lines 55-58) acts as a bonding layer (Cha Para. [0049]) between a bottom surface of the active structure [Cha bottom of 152 Fig. 1] and the top surface of the passive waveguide structure [Cha top of 120 Fig. 1] (Cha Para. [0049]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha in view of Floyd as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kikuchi et al. (hereinafter Kikuchi) (US 20210066117 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Cha in view of Floyd discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose
wherein the InGaP is a layer within a superlattice; and
wherein the superlattice comprises a bonding interface of the active structure.
Kikuchi discloses in Fig. 1B,
a superlattice structure [36] (Para. [0033]) located at a bonding interface of an active structure [bonding 20 to 10] (Para. [0033])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the bonding layer of the modified device of Cha in a superlattice structure as shown in Kikuchi for the purpose of reducing the occurrence of lattice defects in the active layer. (Kikuchi Para. [0033])
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha in view of Floyd as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Hassan et al. (hereinafter Hassan) (US 20200026105 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Cha in view of Floyd discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 6 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the dielectric layer is characterized by a thickness between 50 nm and 600 nm.
Hassan discloses in Fig. 1,
a dielectric layer [20] (Para. [0043]) characterized by a thickness between 50nm and 600nm (Para. [0044])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the thickness of the dielectric layer of Hassan as the thickness of the dielectric layer of the modified device of Cha for the purpose of simpler coupling between the dielectric waveguide and active stack (Hassan Para. [0124])
Regarding claim 8, Cha in view of Floyd discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Cha,
wherein metallization for a contact made to the InGaP layer comprises at least one of Pd, Ge, Au, and Ni.
Cha in view of Floyd fails to disclose,
wherein metallization for a contact made to the InGaP layer comprises at least one of Pd, Ge, Au, and Ni.
Hassan discloses,
an electrode [42] for metallization as a contact to a contact layer [34] comprising Au, Ge and/or Ni (Para. [0038])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the material of the electrode of Hassan as the metal material of the electrode of the modified device of Cha for the purpose of effectively applying voltage to the active layer. (Hassa Para. [0029])
Regarding claim 9, Cha in view of Floyd discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Cha,
wherein the active structure comprises a p-cladding layer overlying the quantum well layer,
Cha in view of Floyd fails to disclose,
the p-cladding layer being characterized by a thickness > 400 nm
Hassan discloses in Fig. 1B,
a p-cladding layer [30] characterized by a thickness of > 400nm (Para. [0044])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the p-cladding layer of Hassan as the p-cladding layer of the modified device of Cha for the purpose of having a cladding layer with no strain. (Hassan Para. [0044])
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha in view of Floyd as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gandrothula et al. (hereinafter Gandrothula) (WO 2021258039 A1). (Examiner notes US publication US 20230238477 A1 will be used for the claim mapping of Gandrothula for the remainder of the instant office action.)
Regarding claim 10, Cha in view of Floyd discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein a top surface of the passive waveguide structure to which the active structure is bonded is characterized by a roughness < 1 nm rms.
Gandrothula discloses,
a bonding interface [111] (Para. [0201]) characterized by a roughness of less than 1nm rms (Para. [0226])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the low surface roughness of the interface of Gandrothula into the bonding interface of the modified device of Cha for the purpose of facilitating bonding that avoids thermal discontinuity. (Gandrothula Para. [0201])
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha in view of Floyd as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiratani et al. (hereinafter Hiratani) (US 20220247155 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Cha in view of Floyd discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Cha Fig. 1,
wherein the active waveguide structure has a cross sectional shape characterized by a mesa [See Fig. 1]
Cha in view of Floyd fails to disclose,
The mesa characterized by a width WM where 1 µm <= WM<=5 µm.
Hiratani discloses in Fig. 1B,
a mesa [52] (Para. [0054]) characterized by shape of a width W6 where 1µm <= W6<=5 µm (Para. [0092]) and an active width W3 (Para. [0048]) where W3= W6+2µm (Paras. [0048,0092])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the mesa widths of Hiratani into the mesa structure of the modified device of Cha for the purpose of effectively dissipating heat. (Hiratani Para. [0037, sub paragraph (6)])
Regarding claim 12, Cha in view of Floyd and Hiratani as applied to claim 11 above further discloses in Hiratani,
wherein the shape is further characterized by an active width WA [W3] where WA = WM +2 µm (Paras. [0048,0092]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha in view of Floyd as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (hereinafter Liu) (US 20200185885 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Cha in view of Floyd discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 and further discloses in Cha Fig. 1,
wherein the active waveguide structure has a cross sectional shape characterized by a mesa [See Fig. 1]
Cha in view of Floyd fails to disclose,
The mesa characterized by a width WM where 5 µm <WM.
Liu discloses in Fig. 19D,
A mesa characterized by a mesa width greater than 5µm (Para. [0099])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the mesa width of Liu as the mesa width of the modified device of Cha for the purpose of reducing optical loss while maintaining operation in a single lateral mode. (Liu Para. [0099])
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha in view of Floyd as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawasumi (JP 2002261397 A) (Examiner notes an attached machine translation will be used for the claim mapping of Kawasumi for the remainder of the instant office action)
Regarding claim 14, Cha in view of Floyd discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the active waveguide structure comprises a second InGaP overlying the quantum well layer, acting as an etch stop layer.
Kawasumi discloses,
a mesa structure [RD2] (Para. [0009]) comprising a GaInP etching stop layer [26] (Para. [0008]) overlying a quantum well [23] (Para. [0008])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the GaInP etching stop layer of Kawasumi overlying the quantum well layer of the modified device of Cha for the purpose of forming desired shapes for a current confinement stripe. (Kawasumi Para. [0009])
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha in view of Floyd as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of Giuntoni et al. (hereinafter Giuntoni) (US 20200091682 A1)
Regarding claim 16, Cha in view of Floyd discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 15 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the semiconductor waveguide structure comprises a semiconductor layer with bandgap >= 1.5eV
Giuntoni discloses,
The use of a GaN semiconductor material as the material for the waveguide structure (Para. [0051])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the GaN material as the material for the semiconductor waveguide of the modified device of Cha for the purpose of allowing lights of other wavelengths to be guided losslessly. (Giuntoni Para. [0051])
Examiner notes Page 7, lines 20-24 of the specification of the claimed application states that an example of a high bandgap semiconductor (bandgap energy larger than 1.5eV) is GaN. Therefore, using the GaN waveguide material as listed in Giuntoni meets the limitation of comprising a semiconductor material with a bandgap greater than 1.5eV.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha in view of Floyd as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kikuchi et al. (hereinafter Kikuchi) (US 20210066117 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Cha in view of Floyd discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose
wherein the InGaP is a layer within a superlattice; and
wherein the superlattice comprises a bonding interface of the active structure.
Kikuchi discloses in Fig. 1B,
a superlattice structure [36] (Para. [0033]) located at a bonding interface of an active structure [bonding 20 to 10] (Para. [0033])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the bonding layer of the modified device of Cha in a superlattice structure as shown in Kikuchi for the purpose of reducing the occurrence of lattice defects in the active layer. (Kikuchi Para. [0033])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner particularly notes US 20150270684 A1 which discloses a bonding contact layer between a silicon waveguide and mesa structure.
Further, US 20120189317 A1 discloses a mesa structure direct bonded to a waveguide structure through a contact bonding layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 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, 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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828