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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-23 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.
Claims 6, 10, 13, 15, 19, and 23, as well as the remaining claims dues to their dependency use the transitional phrase “constituted of.” The phrase is not recognized to be an open or closed phrase such as “comprising” or “consisting of” as discussed in MPEP 2111.03. For purposes of examination, “constituted of” is assumed to be synonymous to “consisting of.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 6, 12-13, 15, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by JP-2012212748 (Takeshi).
For claim 6, Takeshi teaches an optical device (fig. 3), comprising:
an active layer having a multiple quantum well structure (fig. 3, 10) comprising:
a well layer constituted of a first group III-V compound semiconductor, the first group III-V compound semiconductor comprising In, As, and P (fig. 3, 10, InAsP, [0065]); and
a barrier layer constituted of a second group III-V compound semiconductor, the second group III-V compound semiconductor comprising group III-V compound semiconductor including In, Ga, P, and Sb (fig. 3, 10, InGaPSb, [0065]),
wherein a wavelength corresponding to a band gap of the multiple quantum well structure is in a range of 1.19 µm to 1.32 µm ([0065]), and wherein the optical device is disposed on an InP substrate (fig. 3, 7, [0064]).
While the device of Takeshi is described as a laser rather than a modulator, the term modulator is part of the preamble and recites an intended use rather than a structural limitation. The term modulator, therefore, does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2111.02.
For claim 15, Takeshi teaches a method of forming an optical device (fig. 3), comprising:
forming an active layer having a multiple quantum well structure (fig. 3, 10) on an InP substrate (fig. 3, 7, [0064]),
the multiple quantum well structure comprising:
a well layer constituted of a first group III-V compound semiconductor, the first group III-V compound semiconductor comprising In, As, and P (fig. 3, 10, InAsP, [0065]); and
a barrier layer constituted of a second group III-V compound semiconductor, the second group III-V compound semiconductor comprising group III-V compound semiconductor including In, Ga, P, and Sb (fig. 3, 10, InGaPSb, [0065]),
wherein a wavelength corresponding to a band gap of the multiple quantum well structure is in a range of 1.19 µm to 1.32 µm ([0065]).
While the device formed in Takeshi is described as a laser rather than a modulator, the device formed in Takeshi is the same as the device formed in the claimed method and the intended use of the device does not distinguish the claimed method from the method of the prior art.
For claim 12 and 21, Takeshi teaches a molar composition ratio of Sb in group V elements of the barrier layer is larger than o and equal to or less than 0.2 ([0065]).
For claim 13 and 22, Takeshi teaches the well layer is constituted of InAsP, and the barrier layer is constituted of InGaPSb or InGaAsPSb (fig. 3, 10, [0064]).
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.
Claims 7-10, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2012212748 (Takeshi).
For claim 7 and 16, Takeshi teaches a strain amount of the well layer is close to the claimed range of +1.1% to +1.6% ([0065]). However, the examiner takes official notice that the ratio of In and As which determines the lattice constant and strain amount was well-known in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to effect band gap. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to determine workable InAs ratios including those which lead to a strain amount in the range of 1.1% to 1.6% in order to adjust the band gap of the well layer, 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.
For claim 8 and 17, Takeshi does not teach a thickness of the well layer is equal to or more than 6 nm and equal to or less than 12 nm. However, the examiner takes official notice that well-thickness was well-known in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to effect energy levels of the well and tune the absorption or emission wavelength of the well.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to determine workable thickness of the well layer including between 6 nm and 12 nm in order to adjust the wavelength of the well layer, 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.
For claim 9 and 18, Takeshi teaches the active layer comprises a plurality of the well layers, and a quantity of the plurality of well layers is between 6 and 20 ([0064])
For claim 10 and 19, Takeshi teaches the well layer is constituted of InAsP, and the barrier layer is constituted of InGaPSb or InGaAsPSb (fig. 3, 10, [0064]).
Claims 11, 14, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP-2012212748 (Takeshi) in view of “Fabrication and Packaging of 40-Gb/s AlGaInAs Multiple-Quantum-Well Electroabsorption Modulated Lasers Based on Identical Epitaxial Layer Scheme” (Sun).
For claims 11, 14, 20 and 23, Takeshi does not teach the optical modulator is integrated together with a laser on the InP substrate. However, Sun teaches integrating an optical modulator with a laser an InP substrate (fig. 1) in order to provide a device with simplified fabrication (page 1465, 1st line) and 40-Gb/s transmission (title). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical device/modulator of Takeshi with a laser on an InP substrate as taught by Sun in order to provide a transmitter with 40-Gb/s and a simplified fabrication process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/Michael Carter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights