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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11/29/23, 09/10/24 and 12/15/24, have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO/SB/08a).
Specification
3. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) 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.
7. Claims 1-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kazuyuki (JP 2016-157740 A) in view of Yoshitaka (JP 2009-302576 A).
With respect to claims 1 and 12, Kazuyuki (figure 5) discloses a method and an apparatus of an optical waveguide including a diamond layer (303) including a first surface (a surface between 302 and 303), a second surface (a surface between 303 and 304) and a diamond layer including a complex defect (the diamond constituting the light-emitting layer 303 is a composite composed of a pair of nitrogen that has entered a substitution position of carbon in the diamond lattice and a vacancy from which a carbon atom adjacent to the substitution nitrogen has been removed. An NV center which is an impurity defect ([0065])); a first clad layer (302) in contact with the first surface (figure 5); a second clad layer (304) in contact with the second surface (figure 5) and including a polarity (the second semiconductor layer 304 at the respective joint surfaces, the recombination probability of carriers in the light emitting layer 303 made of diamond decreases due to the influence of polarization derived from the polarity of the zinc blende structure ([0082])); and a metal layer (306) contact with the second clad layer (304).
Kazuyuki does not explicitly disclose a metal layer in Schottky contact with the second clad layer.
However, Yoshitaka (figure 18) teaches a method and apparatus including a metal layer (183) in Schottky contact with the second clad layer (see [0081] and figure 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and apparatus of Kazuyuki with the metal layer in Schottky contact with the second clad layer (accordance with the teaching of Yoshitaka) for the purpose of providing Schottky diode with an extremely low leakage current ([0083]).
PNG
media_image1.png
172
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 2 and 13, Kazuyuki (figure 5) substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except a refractive index of the first clad layer and a refractive index of the second clad layer are smaller than a refractive index of the diamond layer.
However, a refractive index of the first clad layer and a refractive index of the second clad layer being smaller than a refractive index of the diamond layer are considered to be obvious to obtain higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kazuyuki to include the above features for the purpose of obtaining higher efficiency of optical signal transmission, and it also has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and it is noted that the applicant does not disclose criticality in the value claimed. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05).
With respect to claims 3 and 14, Kazuyuki (figure 5) discloses the method and the apparatus of the optical waveguide, wherein the second clad layer has spontaneous polarization which is oriented from a side of the metal layer to a side of the diamond layer ([0082], [0084]).
With respect to claims 4 and 15, Kazuyuki (figure 5) discloses the method and the apparatus of the optical waveguide, wherein the metal layer (306) overlaps at least the complex defect in a plan view (figure 5).
With respect to claim 5, Kazuyuki (figure 5) discloses the optical waveguide, wherein the complex defect is composed of at least one of nitrogen, silicon, germanium, tin, lead and boron and a vacancy ([0065]).
With respect to claim 6, Kazuyuki (figure 5) discloses the optical waveguide, wherein the second clad layer includes a nitride semiconductor ([0083-0084]).
With respect to claim 7, Kazuyuki (figure 5) discloses the optical waveguide, wherein a band gap of the nitride semiconductor is not less than 3.4 eV and not more than 6.4 eV at a room temperature ([0066]).
With respect to claim 8, Kazuyuki (figure 5) discloses substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except a short diameter in a cross section perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the diamond layer is not less than 150 nm and not more than 250 nm.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kazuyuki to form a short diameter in a cross section perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the diamond layer not less than 150 nm and not more than 250 nm as claimed, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
With respect to claim 9, Kazuyuki (figure 5) discloses the optical waveguide, wherein the metal layer contains Au, Cu, or Ag ([0073]).
Kazuyuki does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the metal layer is equal to or less than 10 nm.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kazuyuki to form thickness of the metal layer equal to or less than 10 nm as claimed, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
With respect to claim 10, Kazuyuki (figure 5) discloses the optical waveguide, wherein the first clad layer includes a support substrate (301).
8. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Santori et al. (US-8837544-B2) and Kazuyuki (as cited above) and further in view of Yoshitaka (as cited above).
With respect to claim 11, Santori et al. (figure 1) disclose a quantum computing device (100) comprising: an optical waveguide (120) including: a diamond layer (column 2, lines 12-16); and a control system (an optical network) configured to apply a magnetic field (column 8, lines 62-65), an electric field, a microwave or a laser beam to the optical waveguide (column 8, lines 60-65).
Santori et al. do not explicitly disclose a diamond layer including a first surface, a second surface and a complex defect; a first clad layer in contact with the first surface; a second clad layer in contact with the second surface and including a polarity; and a metal layer in contact with the second clad layer.
However, Kazuyuki (figure 5) teaches an optical device including a diamond layer (303) including a first surface (a surface between 302 and 303), a second surface (a surface between 303 and 304) and a diamond layer including a complex defect ([0065]); a first clad layer (302) in contact with the first surface (figure 5); a second clad layer (304) in contact with the second surface (figure 5) and including a polarity ([0082]); and a metal layer (306) contact with the second clad layer (304). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Santori with the above features (accordance with the teaching of Kazuyuki) for the purpose of enhancing the light emission intensity and the light emission efficiency of a light emission element based on a light emission layer (abstract).
Santori et al. and Kazuyuki do not explicitly disclose a metal layer in Schottky contact with the second clad layer.
However, Yoshitaka (figure 18) teaches a device including a metal layer (183) in Schottky contact with the second clad layer (see [0081] and figure 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the above combination by including the metal layer in Schottky contact with the second clad layer (accordance with the teaching of Yoshitaka) for the purpose of providing Schottky diode with an extremely low leakage current ([0083]).
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ohno (US-9472741-B2) discloses a light emitting device. Sumitomo (US-9231370-B2) discloses a light emitting device. Fujikata et al. (US-8467637-B2) disclose a waveguide coupling type photodiode.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Doan whose telephone number is (571) 272-2346. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 7:00am to 3:30pm.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on 571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874