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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 11, 15-26 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “approximately” in claims 11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26 and 32 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification fails to describe how close to parallel or what range of angles is encompassed by the term "approximately." See MPEP 2173.05(b)III.A. The term may be simply deleted to overcome this rejection.
Claims 15-18 and 23-25 fail to cure the indefiniteness of the base claim, and are therefore also rejected.
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.
Claims 11, 15-17, 19, 27-29, 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kosenko et al (US 2013/0177274 A1).
Kosenko discloses a method comprising:
forming a hard mask structure 810 [0075] on a silicon substrate 130 [0074] (Fig. 8, Fig. 9A);
removing silicon using the hard mask structure to expose a planar silicon surface 910.2 having a <110> crystal grain orientation [0076], [0077];
forming, over the planar silicon surface, a portion of a dielectric region 1010 (Fig. 10, [0094], Fig. 33C, [0133]) that is approximately parallel to the planar silicon surface; and
forming, over the portion of the dielectric region, a mirror structure 144 that is parallel to the planar silicon surface (Fig. 33D, Fig. 33E [0134]).
As to claims 15-17, the hard mask structure is used to mask a wet chemical etch operation that uses a tetramethylammonium hydroxide solution [0077] or a potassium hydroxide solution [0080].
As to claim 19, Kosenko discloses that the deposition is conformal as cited (see Fig. 10, [0094]).
As to claim 27, Kosenko discloses a method, comprising:
forming a first dielectric layer 810 on a semiconductor substrate (Fig. 8 depicts that the Substrate 130 is exposed prior to the etching, [0074]);
etching the first dielectric layer to form a first cavity in the first dielectric layer exposing a portion of the semiconductor substrate (Fig. 8, [0074];
etching the semiconductor substrate to form a second cavity 410 in the semiconductor substrate (Fig. 9A, [0075]),
wherein a portion of the first dielectric layer is used a mask structure during etching of the semiconductor substrate [0075], and
wherein the second cavity includes a plurality of surfaces having a <110> crystal grain orientation 910.2 [0077];
conformally depositing a second dielectric layer 1010 on the plurality of surfaces of the second cavity (Fig. 10, [0094]); and
forming a reflective structure 144 on the second dielectric layer (Fig. 33D, [0134])
wherein the reflective structure is aligned with a surface of the plurality of surfaces (as needed to process optical signals, [0008]).
As to claim 28, see the rejection of claims 16-17.
As to claim 29, Kosenko discloses to deposit a reflective material layer on the second dielectric layer (as well as on PR 3430, Fig. 33D); and
removing portion of the reflective material layer to form the reflective structure (by lift-off, [0134]).
As to claim 32, Kosenko discloses an angle of 45° [0077], which is within the cited range.
As to claim 33, Kosenko discloses a surface with a <111> crystal grain orientation [0178] may be included in the device.
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.
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.
Claims 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosenko et al (US 2013/0177274 A1), as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Mohammed et al (US 9,664,858 B2).
As to claim 20, Kosenko fails to further deposit dielectric material over the mirror structure. Mohammed teaches a method of making mirrors 251, 252 (Fig. 2) by etching (col.2, lines 60-64) to form a 45 degree sidewall (col.2, line 65), depositing a reflective material (col.4, lines 28-31, Fig. 6C), and then cladding the reflective material with dielectric material 230 (col.4, lines 32-34). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second portion of dielectric region as cited in the method of Kosenko because Mohammed teaches that this is a useful technique in order to form final integrated photonic devices in which optical signals are aligned as desired in the final product.
As to claim 21, see the rejection of claims 11, 16 and 20.
As to claim 22, Kosenko discloses an angle of 45° [0077], which is within the cited range.
As to claim 23, Kosenko discloses a surface with a <111> crystal grain orientation [0178] may be included in the device.
As to claim 24, see the rejection of claims 16-17.
As to claim 25, see the rejection of claim 20. Kosenko as modified by Mohammed includes depositing over a top surface and side surfaces as cited.
As to claim 26, see the rejection of claim 22.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosenko et al (US 2013/0177274 A1), as applied to claim 29, and further in view of Weng et al (US 2024/0427081 A1).
As to claim 30, Kosenko discloses that the reflective material comprises aluminum or gold [0118], but fails to explicitly disclose AlCu. Weng teaches that when depositing mirrors on sidewalls of a recess 301, that the material may comprise aluminum or gold, but also aluminum copper [0040]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide AlCu as cited in the method of Kosenko because Weng teaches it is a useful material to provide reflective properties as an alternative to aluminum or gold, and such is expected to give the predictable result of a reflective properties in the final product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 31 is 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: the prior art fails to disclose or suggest wet etching such that a portion of the silicon substrate under the hard mask structure is etched, as in the context of claim 18.
The closest prior art, Kosenko et al (US 2013/0177274 A1), discloses wet etching a silicon substrate as defined by a hard mask, as explained in the rejection above. However, Kosenko explains that the aspect ratio of the cavity is low in order to provide a uniform, highly controllable cavity depth. [0093]. While Kosenko broadly discloses that “other shapes” may be provided, there is no suggestion to underetch such that the silicon under the hard mask is etched. The prior art fails to disclose underetch in the context of forming reflective structures for processing optical signals. Accordingly, there is no motivation to modify Kosenko to arrive at the invention, as in the context of claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mathai et al (US 10,816,738 B2) and Warashina et al (US 2010/0142886 A1) are cited to show mirror structures in optical devices. Sekimura (US 2002/0048962 A1) is cited to show etching of silicon to form angled surfaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA K ALANKO whose telephone number is (571)270-0297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ANITA K ALANKO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights