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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baudot (US 2020/0073153 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Baudot discloses a method of manufacturing an optical device, the method comprising:
forming a first layer 117 of optical material (Fig. 4A; [0053]-[0054);
patterning the first layer 117 into a stair-step pattern (Fig. 4A; [0054]);
depositing a dielectric material 121 onto the stair-step pattern (Fig. 4A; [0056]); and
forming a second layer 103 of optical material over the dielectric material 121 and at least partially within the stair-step pattern in a cross-sectional view (Fig. 4B; [0060]).
Re. Claim 2, Baudot discloses forming the first layer forms a P+ region (Figs. 4A-4B; [0048]).
Re. Claim 3, Baudot discloses the forming the second layer forms an N+ region (Figs. 4A-4B; [0048]).
Re. Claim 4, Baudot discloses the stair-step pattern has at least two different thicknesses (Fig. 2A).
Re. Claim 5, Baudot discloses the stair-step pattern has at least three different thicknesses (e.g., wherein one of the thicknesses is equal to zero; Fig. 2A).
Re. Claim 6, Baudot discloses the first layer of optical material is part of an optical phase shifter ([0008]).
Re. Claim 7, Baudot discloses the forming the second layer 103 of optical material forms a third region 1030 and a fourth region 1032, the third region 1030 extending at least partially within the stair-step pattern and the fourth region 1032 having a smaller thickness than the third region 1030 (e.g., fourth region 1032 on the outer sides of the cavity have a smaller thickness than the third region in the middle of the cavity; Fig. 4B; [0042]).
Re. Claim 8, Baudot discloses a method of manufacturing an optical device, the method comprising:
forming a first layer 117 of optical material over a substrate 107/108 (Fig. 4A; [0054]):
forming at least one recess into the first layer 117 of optical material (Fig. 2A);
depositing a dielectric material 121 into the at least one recess (Fig. 4A; [0056]);
depositing a second layer 103 of optical material over the first layer 117 of optical material, the second layer 103 of optical material extending at least partially into the at least one recess (Fig. 4B; [0060]), wherein after the depositing the second layer 103 of optical material at least a first portion of the first layer (e.g., upper surface of portion 116) of optical material is located further away from the substrate than a second portion (e.g., lower surface of portion 103) of the second layer of optical material:
and forming electrical contacts 111 to the first layer of optical material and the second layer of optical material ([0064]).
Re. Claim 11, Baudot discloses forming the first layer 117 of optical material forms a p-region (Figs. 4A-4B; [0048]).
Re. Claim 12, Baudot discloses the depositing the second layer 103 of optical material the second layer of optical material is an n-region (Figs. 4A-4B; [0048]).
Re. Claim 14, Baudot discloses the forming the at least one recess forms at least two recesses with different depths (Fig. 2A).
Claim(s) 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shubin et al. (US 2010/0215309 A1).
Re. Claim 15, Shubin et al. discloses an optical device 700 comprising:
a first optical material 715 over a substrate 710/705 (Fig. 7; [0046]);
a second optical material 740 over the substrate 710/705 (Fig. 7; [0046]); and
a dielectric material 725 directly between the first optical material 715 and the second optical material 740, wherein the first optical material 715 and the second optical material 740 have respective portions interleaved with each other (Fig. 7; [0046]).
Re. Claim 18, Shubin et al. discloses a first contact 730 in electrical connection with the first optical material 715; and a second contact 750 in electrical connection with the second optical material 740 (Fig. 7; [0046]).
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 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.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baudot (US 2020/0073153 A1).
Re. Claims 9-10, Baudot discloses the method as discussed above. Baudot also discloses the first layer of optical material 117 comprises silicon ([0054]). However, Baudot does not disclose an arrangement wherein depositing the second layer of optical material deposits polysilicon.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use polysilicon as the second layer of optical material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re. Claim 13, Baudot discloses the method as discussed above. Baudot does not disclose implanting dopants into the second layer of optical material after the depositing the second layer of optical material. Instead, in Baudot, silicon is doped with germanium prior to deposition on the optical device. Nonetheless, doping after application of a layer, as is done with the first optical layer 117, is known in the prior art (Fig. 2A; [0048]). The claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 16-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shubin et al. (US 2010/0215309 A1).
Re. Claim 16, Shubin et al. discloses the optical device as discussed above, wherein the first optical material 715 comprises silicon ([0046]), but fails to disclose the second optical material comprises polysilicon.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use polysilicon as the second layer of optical material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re. Claim 17, Shubin et al. discloses the optical device as discussed above, but fails to disclose the dielectric material has a thickness of between 2 nm and 5 nm.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the dielectric material according to the claimed thickness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re. Claim 19, Shubin et al. discloses the optical device as discussed above, but fails to disclose a portion of the second optical material has a thickness of about 90 nm.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the second optical material according to the claimed thickness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re. Claim 20, Shubin et al. discloses the optical device as discussed above, but fails to disclose the optical device has a driving voltage of less than 1 V for an operation speed of about 50 G.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the device having the claimed driving voltage and operation speed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 pm.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 4/24/26
Prosecution Insights