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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 4, 2026, with respect to claims 1-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, previously cited paragraph [0054] of previously cited US 2011/0058764 (“KIM”) explicitly teaches the claimed junction between the first doping region D1 and the second doping region 50.
Applicant’s arguments filed February 4, 2026, with respect to claims 11-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 11-14, 16, 17, and 19, and the objection to claims 15, 18, and 20 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KIM.
Regarding claim 1, KIM teaches a semiconductor structure (FIG. 1A), comprising: a waveguide structure (WG) on a substrate (10), wherein the waveguide structure comprises a first doping region (D1, D2) having a first type of dopant and a second doping region (50) having a second type of dopant different from the first type (par. [0053]); a photoelectric material proximal to a junction of the first doping region and the second doping region (par. [0054]); and a transistor on the substrate at a level same as a level of the waveguide structure (par. [0055]).
Regarding claim 3, KIM teaches that the photoelectric material has a crystalline structure over or surrounding the junction of the first doping region and the second doping region (par. [0052]).
Regarding claim 4, KIM teaches that the photoelectric material extends within the waveguide structure over or between the junction of the first doping region and the second doping region (FIG. 1A; par. [0054]).
Regarding claim 5, KIM teaches that the photoelectric material defines a third doping region in the waveguide structure, and the third doping region is separated from the first doping region or the second doping region (FIG. 1A; par. [0054]).
Regarding claim 7, KIM teaches that an area of overlap, in a cross- sectional view, of the photoelectric material and the first doping region having a p-type conductivity is greater than an area of overlap of the photoelectric material and the second doping region having an n-type conductivity (FIG. 1A; par. [0053]).
Regarding claim 9, KIM teaches an interconnect structure (C1, C2) over the waveguide structure and the transistor, wherein the first doping region is electrically connected to a first conductive line (92a, 92b) of the interconnect structure, and the second doping region is electrically connected to a second conductive line (91) of the interconnect structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM in view of US 2017/0069769 (“USAMI”).
KIM teaches the limitations of the base claim 1. KIM does not teach that the photoelectric material includes germanium. USAMI teaches a photoelectric material that includes germanium (par. [0151]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the photoelectric material of KIM so as to include germanium, as taught by USAMI. The motivation would have been to improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency (par. [0151]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM in view of US 2014/0314374 (“FATTAL”).
KIM teaches the limitations of the base claim 4. KIM does not teach a grating structure, configured to receive an optical signal; and a transition structure having a strip configuration, wherein the transition structure is configured to transmit the optical signal to the waveguide structure, and the transition structure extends toward the third doping region. FATTAL teaches a grating structure (104), configured to receive an optical signal; and a transition structure (102) having a strip configuration, wherein the transition structure is configured to transmit the optical signal to a waveguide structure (106; FIGs. 1-3; par. [0015]). Furthermore, when implementing the structure of FATTAL in the structure of KIM, the transition structure would extend toward the third doping region. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the structure of KIM so as to include the structure of FATTAL. The motivation would have been to achieve efficient coupling (par. [0014]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, 15, 18, and 20 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.
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole, as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious a high-k layer formed so as to surround and be conformed to the waveguide structure and the photoelectric material.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole, as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious a second waveguide structure on the substrate at a level same as the level of the first waveguide structure, wherein an orientation of the second waveguide structure is different from an orientation of the first waveguide structure; and a first conductive pad and a second conductive pad surrounded by a passivation layer above the interconnect structure, wherein the first conductive pad is configured to provide an electrical path of a first electrical signal to the first waveguide structure and the second waveguide structure, and the second conductive pad is configured to provide an electrical path of a second electrical signal from the first waveguide structure and the second waveguide structure.
Regarding claims 11-16, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole, as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious first and second waveguides, each extending individually along first and second directions, respectively, from a top-view perspective and comprising first and second input terminals, respectively, and first and second output terminals, respectively; and the first and second photoelectric layers being between the first and second input terminals and the first and second output terminals, respectively.
Regarding claims 17-20, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole, as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious the step of forming a first doping region, a second doping region and a third doping region in the substrate, wherein the first doping region is disposed in the optical structure, the second doping region is disposed adjacent to the first doping region in the optical structure, and the third doping region of a transistor is disposed in the semiconductor layer separated from the optical structure
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
/JERRY M BLEVINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights