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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of specie C (Figs. 8-8a) in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2023 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tysoe (US Patent US-20080230716-A1) in the view of Dittmar (US Patent US-20180258551-A1 used in the IDS), hereinafter Dittmar.
Regarding claim 1, Tysoe teaches a photonic device (Fig. 4 LED 108) comprising a distributed Bragg reflector DBR (Fig. 2 DBR 116 & 126), the DBR comprising a stack of Group III-Nitride layers (Fig. 4 DBR 116 & 1126 are made of Group III-Nitride layers, see [0056]).
Tysoe fails to teach DBR comprising Aluminum Scandium Nitride layers.
However, Dittmar teaches Aluminum Scandium Nitride layers (see [0113] & [0123] and Tables [0127] & [0135]) being used for DBR ([0106] states “Other alternating series of layers can be used as a Bragg mirror, for example in vertical laser components”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Tysoe’s device with a DBR comprising layers of Aluminum Scandium Nitride (e.g. adding layers of Aluminum Scandium Nitride in DBR’s 116 and 126 from Tysoe) as taught by Dittmar because it would allow to increase electrical conductivity of the stack of layers as a superlattice structure without producing large mechanical strains or structural defects (from Dittmar [106]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soltani (NPL Optics Express, Vol. 24, No. 22, Oct 31 2016, 25415-25423p) in the view of Dittmar (US Patent US-20180258551-A1 used in the IDS), hereinafter Dittmar.
Regarding claim 2, Soltani teaches a photonic integrated circuit platform (see abstract ), comprising: a photonic waveguiding layer of AlyGa1-yN where 0 ≤ y ≤ 1 (Fig. 2a-b cross section of AlxGa1-xN where x=0-1 ).
Soltani fails to teach a group III-Nitride compound material of Al1-xScxN.
However, Dittmar teaches a Group III-Nitride compound material of Al1-xScxN 0 < x ≤ 0.45 (see [0113] & [0123]; and [0129] states “Sc0.009Al0.991N”) being used for DBR ([0106] states “Other alternating series of layers can be used as a Bragg mirror, for example in vertical laser components”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Soltani’s device with a group III-Nitride compound material of Al1-xScxN as taught by Dittmar (e.g. adding layers of Al1-xScxN to in Soltani’s in his photonic device) because it would allow to increase electrical conductivity of the stack of layers as a superlattice structure without producing large mechanical strains or structural defects (from Dittmar [106]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat (US Patent US-20080299691-A1), in the view of and Dittmar (US Patent US-20180258551-A1), hereinafter Dittmar.
Regarding claim 3, Bhat teaches photonic device (Fig. 1 laser 10), comprising: a Group III-Nitride quantum well photonic waveguiding layer (Fig. 1 AlGaN/GaInN multiple quantum wells 42; waveguides 44 & 46 are made of GaN/GaInN, see [0018]); and a distributed Bragg reflector DBR (Fig. 1 laser 10 DBR reflectors, see [0010] & [0015]).
Bhat fails to teach DBR comprising Al1-xScxN, where: 0 < x ≤ 0.45.
However, Dittmar teaches Aluminum Scandium Nitride layers (see [0113] & [0123] and Tables [0127] & [0135]) being used for DBR ([0106] states “Other alternating series of layers can be used as a Bragg mirror, for example in vertical laser components”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Bhat’s device with a DBR comprising layers of Aluminum Scandium Nitride (e.g. having Aluminum Scandium Nitride layers in DBR’s layers in Bhat’s device) as taught by Dittmar because it would allow to increase electrical conductivity of the stack of layers as a superlattice structure without producing large mechanical strains or structural defects (from Dittmar [106]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat (US Patent US-20080299691-A1), in the view of and Dittmar (US Patent US-20180258551-A1), as per claim 3, in further view of Margalit (US Patent US-20140185636-A1), hereinafter Margalit.
Regarding claim 3, Bhat’s modified device teaches the photonic device recited in 3.
Bhat’s modified device fails to teach the photonic device functions as an electro-optic modulator to modulate an incident light normal to the DBR layers.
However, Margalit teaches photonic device (Fig. 5 a system for electro-optic phase modulation of a VCSEL circuit) functions as an electro-optic modulator to modulate an incident light normal to the DBR layers (Fig. 6 steps 626 & 628; Fig. 4 shows the incident light normal to the DBR layers).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Bhat’s device in the view of Dittmar with a photonic device functions as an electro-optic modulator as taught by Margalit because it would enhance range of multi-modal fiber communication (from Margalit [005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDA ADRIANA CAMACHO ALANIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm Friday off.
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.
/FERNANDA ADRIANA CAMACHO ALANIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights