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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/391,997 filed on 12/21/2023.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2024/0184062 to Michit et al. (Michit) in view of US Pub # 2007/0284607 to Epler et al. (Epler).
Regarding independent claim 1, Michit discloses an optoelectronic system (Fig. 3: 1) including a photoelectric transducer (30) configured to emit or receive optical waves (¶0092) and a waveguide (40) configured to guide the waves emitted by the photoelectric transducer (30) or to guide the waves to the photoelectric transducer (30 and ¶0092-0093), said optoelectronic system (1) including a stack successively comprising:
a second layer (13a) of semiconductor material doped (¶0150),
a zone (13b) comprising one or more quantum wells (¶0150),
a third layer (13c) of semiconductor material doped according to a second doping type (P) opposite to the first doping type (N) (¶0091),
the photoelectric transducer (30) comprising a first portion of the second layer (see examiner’s mark-up 1 below), at least a first portion of the zone comprising the one or more quantum wells (see examiner’s mark-up 1 below) and at least a first portion of the third layer (see examiner’s mark-up 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
539
785
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the waveguide (Fig. 3: 40) comprising a second portion of the second layer (see examiner’s mark-up 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
531
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Michit fails to explicitly disclose a porous first layer of semiconductor material doped according to a first doping type, and the second layer of semiconductor material doped according to the first doping type and lightly doped compared to the semiconductor material of the first layer and the porous first layer comprising a first portion of the porous first layer, and the waveguide disposed on a second portion of the porous first layer.
Epler discloses two p-type layer of semiconductor material (¶0032). A porous first layer (Fig. 12: 98) of semiconductor material (p+ GaP) doped according to a first doping type and a second layer (96) of semiconductor material (such as p-type AlInGaP layer 96) doped according to the first doping type and lightly doped (p) compared to the semiconductor material of the first layer (which is p+) and the porous first layer (98) comprising a first portion of the porous first layer (Fig. 12) and the waveguide disposed on a second portion of the porous first layer (¶0035).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modify the porous first layer and the second layer of Michit with the porous first layer and the second layer as taught by Epler in order for the porous region to scatter light away from an absorbing contact which improve the electrical properties of the device and thereby improve performance (¶0035).
Regarding claim 2, Michit as previously modified fail to disclose wherein the porous first layer has a porosity rate of between 1 % and 80%.
Epler discloses wherein the porous first layer has a porosity rate of between 1 % and 80%.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the optoelectronic system of Michit to include the porous first layer to have a porosity rate to scatter light and on the upper end by the resistivity and mechanical stability of the porous layer (¶0026).
Regarding claim 3, Michit discloses wherein the waveguide (40) further comprises a second portion of the zone comprising the one or more quantum wells (see examiner’s mark-up 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
472
743
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Michit discloses wherein the waveguide further comprises a second portion of the third layer (see examiner’s mark-up 4 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
471
718
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Michit discloses wherein the waveguide (40) has a widened proximal end 41 and a funnel shape 44 at this end 41 (¶0146).
Michit in view of Epler fails to explicitly disclose wherein the waveguide has a height of between 200 nm and 300 nm and a width of between 200 nm and 300 nm.
However, the height and width of the waveguide (40) affect the thickness of the optoelectronic system. It is known in the art to use height and width for the waveguide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to vary, through routine experimentation, the result effect variable of the height and width of the waveguide in order to better coupling of the incident optical power at the end of the waveguide (see MPEP §2144.05). Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed height and width or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 6, Michit discloses an optoelectronic system including second (13a) and third (13c) semiconductor layers formed of the same semiconductor material (¶0096). However, the Michit does not explicitly disclose a first layer.
Epler teaches a first semiconductor layer (Fig. 12: 98). It would have been obvious to modify the device of the Michit to include the first layer as taught by the Epler in order for the porous region to scatter light away from an absorbing contact which improve the electrical properties of the device and thereby improve performance (¶0035).
Further, it would have been obvious to form the first layer of the same semiconductor material as the second and third layers, as suggested by the material uniformity in the Michit, in order to improve lattice matching and reduce interface defects, thereby enhancing device performance. The disclosure of the Epler teaches a different material does not preclude using the same material, as material selection is a known design choice.
Regarding claim 7, Michit discloses wherein the photoelectric transducer is of a light emitting diode transducer or a photodiode transducer. Michit discloses an optoelectronic system including a photoelectric transducer (¶ 0023). Specifically, the Michit teaches a “micrometric LED source,” which corresponds to a light emitting diode transducer, and further teaches that the receiver may be implemented as a “photodiode,” which corresponds to a photodiode transducer (¶0023). Accordingly, Michit explicitly teaches that the photoelectric transducer may be implemented as either a light emitting diode or a photodiode.
Regarding claim 8, Michit discloses a dielectric layer (Fig. 3: 51) coating the photoelectric transducer (30) and the waveguide (40).
Regarding claim 9, Michit discloses a mirror (22 or 23 act as planar mirror, ¶0038) disposed on at least one peripheral surface of the photoelectric transducer (Fig. 3: 30).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2024/0184062 to Michit et al. (Michit) in view of US Pub # 2007/0284607 to Epler et al. (Epler) and further in view of EP 1336892 to Santos et al. (Santos).
Regarding claim 10, Michit as previously modified discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Michit as previously modified fails to disclose a Bragg mirror arranged under the photoelectric transducer and under the waveguide, said Bragg mirror comprising one or more porous layers of semiconductor material stacked alternately with one or more non-porous layers of semiconductor material.
Santos discloses (Fig. 1) a Bragg mirror (Fig. 1: 30) arranged under the photoelectric transducer (14) and under the waveguide (22), said Bragg mirror (30) comprising one or more porous layers of semiconductor material (Fig. 1: 30 consisting of layers 32, 34) stacked alternately with one or more non-porous layers of semiconductor material.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the optoelectronic system of Michit with the Bragg mirror as taught by Santos in order to maximize the interaction with the optical field (see text corresponding text).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 11 recites:
“a second photoelectric transducer, the photoelectric transducer and the second photoelectric transducer being disposed on either side of the waveguide, and wherein the second photoelectric transducer includes:
a third portion of the porous first layer,
a third portion of the second layer,
a third portion of the zone comprising the one or more quantum wells,
a third portion of the third layer.”
Claim 16 recites:
“forming a stack by successively epitaxially growing, on a substrate, a layer of semiconductor material doped according to the first doping type and the second layer of semiconductor material doped according to the first doping type and lightly doped compared to the first layer, partially etching the second layer of semiconductor material, so as to obtain an island, porosifying the layer of semiconductor material doped according to the first doping type, to obtain the porous first layer of semiconductor material, selectively epitaxially forming the zone comprising the one or more quantum wells on a first region of the island, and selectively epitaxially forming the third layer of semiconductor material on the zone comprising the one or more quantum wells in the first region, so as to form the photoelectric transducer in the first region.”
Each of the above recitations, interpreted in combination with all other limitations of the claim and all limitations of any claims they depend from, is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record and are indicated as allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub # 2018/0267238 to Wang et al.; US Pat # 8,299,451 to Udagawa; and US Pat # 6,873, 638 to Haase et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHSEN AHMADI whose telephone number is (571)272-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MOHSEN AHMADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights