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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 December 2023 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement; please see attached forms PTO-1449.
Drawings
The drawings submitted have been reviewed and determined to facilitate understanding of the invention. The drawings are accepted as submitted.
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 16-20, 22-24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Lateral n-p junction for acoustoelectric nanocircuits” by Hosey et al. (“Hosey”), cited in Applicant’s IDS.
Regarding Claim 16, Hosey describes an optoelectronic arrangement (see Fig 1) comprising:
an optoelectronic component (lateral n-p junction) comprising a layer stack (see Pg 491 Par 6-Pg 492 Par 1) including an active area (4) arranged between a layer of a first conductive type (3) and a layer of a second conductive type (5);
a substrate (see Pg 491 Par 7-Pg 492 Par 1) configured to generate an alternating electrical field at a surface of the substrate, the alternating electrical field having opposing field components (see Pg 492 Par 2-Pg 493 Par 1); and
at least one first excitation element (1) arranged on or within the substrate, wherein the optoelectronic component is arranged on the substrate such that the opposing field components of the alternating electrical field are substantially perpendicular to respective layers of the layer stack (see Pg 492 Par 5-Pg 493 Par 1).
Regarding Claim 17, Hosey describes the substrate configured to generate a surface acoustic wave propagating beneath the optoelectronic component (see Pg 492 Pars 2, 6).
Regarding Claim 18, Hosey describes at least one of the layers of the first and second conductive types is arranged substantially perpendicular to the surface of the substrate (see Fig 1 and Pg 491 Par 7-Pg 492 Par2).
Regarding Claim 19, Hosey describes the opposing field components spaced apart by a distance corresponding to half of a wavelength of the alternating electrical field (see Pg 492 Par 6).
Regarding Claim 20, Hosey describes the layer stack comprising a thickness (150 nm, see Pg 491 Par 7-Pg 492 Par 1) less than a wavelength (4-5 mm for the SAW frequency of 0.95 GHz, see Pg 492 Par 2) of the alternating electrical field.
Regarding Claims 22 and 23, Hosey describes a second excitation element arranged on or within the substrate spaced apart by a distance from the at least one first excitation element with the optoelectronic component arranged in between (the perpendicular edges of the substrate shown in Fig 1 will act as reflectors for the SAW waves, thereby forming a second excitation element).
Regarding Claim 24, Hosey describes the at least one first excitation element comprising an interdigital transducer (see Pg 492 Par 2).
Regarding Claim 26, Hosey describes the first excitation element configured to excite the substrate with a sine wave excitation signal (see Fig 4 and Pg 492 Par 6).
Claims 27 and 28 describes a method substantially embodied by the above-discussed devices of Claims 16 and 18. Therefore, Claims 27 and 28 are rejected in view of Hosey for substantially the same reasoning.
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 21 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosey as applied to Claims 16 and 27 above.
Regarding Claim 21, Hosey does not describe the layer stack comprising a thickness in a range of 0.4 to 0.8 of a wavelength of the alternating electrical field. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the layer stack having the claimed height, 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.
Claim 31 describes a method substantially embodied by the above-discussed device of Claim 21. Therefore, Claim 31 is rejected in view of US1 for substantially the same reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25, 29, and 30 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.
Claim 25 describes the alternating electrical field comprising a standing wave, with the active area of the layer stack being located substantially at a node of the standing wave.
Claim 29 describes generating the surface acoustic wave as comprising generating a first surface acoustic wave with a first frequency and generating a second surface acoustic wave with a second frequency that is slightly different from the first frequency.
Claim 30 describes generating the surface acoustic wave as comprising adjusting the wavelength such that only one node is located beneath the optoelectronic component.
These limitations represent subject matter not described or reasonably suggested, in conjunction with the further limitations of the present claims, by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art cited in the attached form PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art describes various optoelectronic arrangements comprising layer stacks and substrates configured to generate an alternating electrical field at a surface thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. 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, 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.
/JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874