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
Claims 5 and 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1.20.2026.
Examiner Note
Claims are rejected over multiple prior art based on alternative interpretations of the claim language and/or of the prior art to show unpatentability of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simoyama (US 20190378949 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Simoyama discloses a photodiode (Fig. 1 – annotated below; MPEP 2125) comprising:
a doped layer (926, “n-type Si region 926”); and
an absorption (and multiplication) region (925+933) positioned on the doped layer, wherein the absorption (and multiplication) region (925+933) comprises:
a base region (annotated below) contacting the doped layer;
a first facet region (annotated below) positioned on the base region, wherein the first facet region comprises (i) a first tapered surface (S1) and a second tapered surface (S2) extending from the base region and (ii) a first step region (Step1) and a second step region (Step2) extending laterally inward from the first tapered surface (S1) and the second tapered surface (S2) respectively, wherein the first step region (Step1) and the second step region (Step2) comprise horizontal surfaces (with respect to 911) extending toward each other; and
a second facet region (annotated below) positioned on the first facet region, wherein the second facet region comprises a third tapered surface (S3) extending from the first step region (Step1) and a fourth tapered surface (S4) extending from the second step region (Step2).
PNG
media_image1.png
489
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
489
525
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Simoyama discloses the photodiode of Claim 1, wherein the base region (annotated above) is wider than the first facet region (annotated above), and wherein the first facet region (annotated above) is wider than the second facet region (annotated above, MPEP 2125).
Regarding claim 8, Simoyama discloses the photodiode of Claim 1, wherein the first step region (Step1) extends laterally from the first tapered surface (S1), and wherein the second step region (Step2) extends laterally from the second tapered surface (S2) towards the first step region (Step 1, Fig. 1 annotated above, MPEP 2125).
Regarding claim 17, Simoyama discloses an absorption (and multiplication) region (925+933) of a photodiode (Fig. 1, annotated above, MPEP 2125), the absorption region comprising:
a base region (annotated above);
a first facet region (annotated above) positioned on the base region, wherein the first facet region comprises (i) a first tapered surface (S1) and a second tapered surface (S2) extending from the base region and (ii) a first step region (Step1) and a second step region (Step2) extending laterally inward from the first tapered surface (S1) and the second tapered surface (S2) respectively, wherein the first step region (Step1) and the second step region (Step2) comprise horizontal surfaces (with respect to 911) extending toward each other; and
a second facet region (annotated above) positioned on the first facet region, wherein the second facet region comprises a third tapered surface (S3) extending from the first step region (Step1) and a fourth tapered surface (S4) extending from the second step region (Step2).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simoyama (US 20190378949 A1) in view of Usami (US 20170317221 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Simoyama fails to disclose the photodiode of Claim 1, wherein the doped layer defines a cavity and wherein the base region is positioned within the cavity.
Usami discloses wherein a silicon layer (SL) defines a cavity (OP2) and wherein the base region (at least IGL) is positioned within the cavity (Fig. 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to include the cavity of Usami in Simoyama and arrive at the claimed invention, by providing a cavity in the doped layer 926 of Simoyama and providing the base region in said cavity so as to enable “reduction in the manufacturing cost and the improvement in the optical performance” (Usami, [0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Simoyama fails to disclose the photodiode of Claim 1, further comprising a silicon cap positioned on the first step region, the second step region, and the second facet region.
Usami discloses further comprising a silicon cap (CAP, [0053]) positioned on an absorption region (at least IGL, Fig. 20).
Note: in the proposed modification, providing the silicon cap of Usami over the entirety of the absorption region of Simoyama meets “a silicon cap positioned on (at least indirectly) the first step region, the second step region, and the second facet region” since said silicon cap would be provided over element 933 of Simoyama in Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to include the silicon cap of Usami in Simoyama and arrive at the claimed invention so as to enable “reduction in the manufacturing cost and the improvement in the optical performance” (Usami, [0005]).
Regarding claim 4, Simoyama/Usami discloses the photodiode of Claim 3, further comprising a metal contact (L1B, [0056]) positioned on the silicon cap (CAP, Fig. 20).
Claims 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simoyama (US 20190378949 A1) in view of Zhu et al. (US 20200259037 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Simoyama fails to disclose the photodiode of Claim 1, further comprising a silicon cap positioned on the first step region, the second step region, and the second facet region.
Zhu discloses further comprising a silicon cap (“P type silicon cap 252”) positioned on an absorption region (at least 240, Fig. 2H).
Note: in the proposed modification, providing the silicon cap of Zhu over the entirety of the absorption region of Simoyama meets “a silicon cap positioned on (at least indirectly) the first step region, the second step region, and the second facet region” since said silicon cap would be provided over element 933 of Simoyama in Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to include the silicon cap of Zhu in Simoyama and arrive at the claimed invention so as to enable “formation of a silicided anode contact over the P type anode, thereby further advantageously reducing P type contact resistance” (Zhu, [0019]).
Regarding claim 4, Simoyama/Zhu discloses the photodiode of Claim 3, further comprising a metal contact (260) positioned on the silicon cap (252, Fig. 2H).
Regarding claim 6, Simoyama/Zhu discloses the photodiode of Claim 3, wherein the doped layer (226, N) has a first doping (N) and the silicon cap (252, P+) has a second doping opposite the first doping (N vs P, Fig.2H).
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novack et al. (US 20200393618 A1) in view of Usami et al. (“Usami143”, US 20170012143 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Novack discloses (Fig. 3A annotated below) a photodiode comprising:
a doped layer (20 or 30, “first doped, e.g. p-type, contact 20” or “second doped, e.g. n-type, contact 30”); and
an absorption region (22/39, “an upper portion 39 of the absorbing body 22”) positioned on the doped layer, wherein the absorption region comprises:
a base region (base) contacting (at least indirectly) the doped layer;
a first facet region (facet1) positioned on the base region, wherein the first facet region comprises (i) a first tapered surface (S1) and a second tapered surface (S2) extending from the base region and (ii) a first step region (Step1) and a second step region (Step2) extending laterally inward from the first tapered surface (S1) and the second tapered surface (S2) respectively, wherein the first step region (Step1) and the second step region (Step2) comprise horizontal surfaces (with respect to 38) extending toward each other; and
a second facet region (facet2) positioned on the first facet region, wherein the second facet region comprises a third
PNG
media_image3.png
588
796
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Novack fails to disclose a third “tapered” surface (S3) and a fourth “tapered” surface (S4, this is because S3 and S4 of Novack appear to be at right angle with the step regions).
Usami143 discloses a third tapered surface (sidewall of NG) and a fourth tapered surface (opposite sidewall of NG, Fig. 7B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to include tapered surfaces as claimed in Novack in view of Usami143 so as to enable a “germanium optical receiver in which a dark current is small is achieved” (Usami143 – Abstract). Furthermore, it has been held that a change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Regarding claim 3, Novack/Usami143 discloses the photodiode of Claim 1, further comprising a silicon cap (CA2, “second cap layer CA2 made of silicon (Si)”) positioned on (at least indirect) the first step region (upper left of IG), the second step region (upper right of IG), and the second facet region (NG, Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 4, Novack/Usami143 discloses the the photodiode of Claim 3, further comprising a metal contact (PL, “PL mainly made of tungsten”) positioned on the silicon cap (CA2, Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 7, Novack/Usami143 discloses the photodiode of Claim 1, wherein the base region (base) is wider than the first facet region (facet1), and wherein the first facet region is wider than the second facet region (facet2, Fig. 3A annotated above).
Regarding claim 8, Novack/Usami143 discloses the photodiode of Claim 1, wherein the first step region (Step1) extends laterally from the first tapered surface (S1), and wherein the second step region (Step2) extends laterally from the second tapered surface (S2) towards the first step region (Fig. 3A annotated above).
Regarding claim 17, Novack discloses (Fig. 3A annotated above) an absorption region (22/39, “an upper portion 39 of the absorbing body 22”) of a photodiode, the absorption region comprising:
a base region (base);
a first facet region (facet1) positioned on the base region, wherein the first facet region comprises (i) a first tapered surface (S1) and a second tapered surface (S2) extending from the base region and (ii) a first step region (Step1) and a second step region (Step2) extending laterally inward from the first tapered surface (S1) and the second tapered surface (S2) respectively, wherein the first step region (Step1) and the second step region (Step2) comprise horizontal surfaces (with respect to 38) extending toward each other; and
a second facet region (facet2) positioned on the first facet region, wherein the second facet region comprises a third
Novack fails to disclose a third “tapered” surface (S3) and a fourth “tapered” surface (S4, this is because S3 and S4 of Novack appear to be at right angle with the step regions).
Usami143 discloses a third tapered surface (sidewall of NG) and a fourth tapered surface (opposite sidewall of NG, Fig. 7B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to include tapered surfaces as claimed in Novack in view of Usami143 so as to enable a “germanium optical receiver in which a dark current is small is achieved” (Usami143 – Abstract). Furthermore, it has been held that a change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6.8.2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant alleges “Furthermore, in the office action, the Examiner includes an annotated Fig. 1 of Simoyama in which the Examiner attempts to identify step regions in Simoyama. However, Applicant submits that the step regions of Simoyama that the Examiner maps to the first and second step regions of Applicant's claims are not horizontal surfaces that extend toward each other as currently recited in Applicant's claims as amended in this paper. Rather, Simoyama discloses a continuous vertical stack of semiconductor layers without the
distinctive shelf structure recited in amended claims 1 and 17”.
This is not persuasive as Simoyama discloses a first step region (Step1) and a second step region (Step2) extending laterally inward from the first tapered surface (S1) and the second tapered surface (S2) respectively, wherein the first step region (Step1) and the second step region (Step2) comprise horizontal surfaces (with respect to 911) extending toward each other.
PNG
media_image4.png
502
532
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The applicant alleges “Applicant submits that the absorbing body 22 in Novack does not have horizontal step regions extending laterally inward toward each other”.
This is not persuasive because Novack discloses a first step region (Step1) and a second step region (Step2) extending laterally inward from the first tapered surface (S1) and the second tapered surface (S2) respectively, wherein the first step region (Step1) and the second step region (Step2) comprise horizontal surfaces (with respect to 38) extending toward each other.
PNG
media_image5.png
588
796
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner Suggestion
Based on Fig. 2 and [0027] – “The base region 204 may be a rectangular region…” the examiner suggests amending claims 1 and 17 to recite better the specific shape and sidewalls of the base region as these are different that the current prior art of record. The examiner suggestion is not an affirmation of patentability.
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 ANDRES MUNOZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3346. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM Central Time.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571)270-3829. 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.
/Andres Munoz/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights