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
None filed.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, 13, 15, 16, 25, 28, 30, 33-36, 38, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (CN 109273552 A).
Referring to Claim 1, Yang teaches in Fig. 6 a charge-compensated modified uni-traveling carrier (CC-MUTC) photodiode comprising: a semiconductor substrate (1; semi-insulating InP substrate); a stack of functional layers including: a p-contact layer (2; p-type heavily doped InGaAs) stacked on and in contact with the semiconductor substrate (1); an absorber layer (4; p-type gradient doped InGaAs) stacked on the p-contact layer (2); a cliff layer (15; abstract; n-type doped InP) stacked on the absorber layer (4); a drift layer (5; n-type doped InP) stacked on the cliff layer (15); an n-contact layer (9) stacked on the drift layer (5); a first metal contact (10) in contact with the p-contact layer (2); and a second metal contact (12) in contact with the n-contact layer (9). "The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2131).
Referring to Claim 10, Yang further teaches a first quaternary layer (13) disposed between the p-contact layer (2) and the absorber layer (4); and a second quaternary layer (14) disposed between the absorber layer (4) and the cliff layer (15).
Referring to Claim 13, Yang further teaches wherein the p-contact layer (2) is a p-type InGaAs layer.
Referring to Claim 30, Yang further teaches wherein the first metal contact (11) is horizontally spaced apart from the center of the stack of functional layers and the second metal contact (12) is vertically placed on a center of the stack of functional layers.
Referring to Claim 33, Yang further teaches wherein only electrons traverse the drift layer (5) to contribute to the photocurrent of the CC-MUTC.
As insofar as Claim 34 is definite, Yang further teaches wherein the CC-MUTC is thermally limited such that the maximum power of the electrical signal generated by the CC-MUTC is limited only by the temperature the MUTC can withstand before its failure. The manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) See MPEP §2114. It has also been held that when the claimed and prior art products are identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP § 2112.01. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Referring to Claim 35, Yang further teaches wherein the cliff layer (15) is configured to avoid an electric field collapse across the functional layers of the CC-MUTC (par. 53). The manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) See MPEP §2114. It has also been held that when the claimed and prior art products are identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP § 2112.01. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Referring to Claim 36, Yang further teaches wherein the operational power of the CC-MUTC is not limited by a space-charge effect due to the presence of the cliff layer (15; par. 53). The manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) See MPEP §2114. It has also been held that when the claimed and prior art products are identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP § 2112.01. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Referring to Claim 38, Yang further teaches wherein a first current path extends horizontally and has a distance corresponding to a distance from the first metal contact (10) to the center of the stack of functional layers, wherein a second current path extends vertically and has a distance corresponding to the thickness of the n-contact layer (9).
Referring to Claim 15, Yang teaches in Fig. 6 a flip-chip bonded charge-compensated modified uni-traveling carrier (CC-MUTC) photodiode comprising: a semiconductor substrate (1); a stack of functional layers, including: a p-contact layer (2) stacked on and in contact with the semiconductor substrate (1); an absorber layer (4) stacked on the p-contact layer (2); a cliff layer (15) stacked on the absorber layer (2); a drift layer (5) stacked on the cliff layer (15); an n-contact layer (9) stacked on the drift layer (5); and a heat sink (12) on the stack of functional layers, wherein the n-contact layer (9) is disposed closer to the heat sink (12) than the p-contact layer (2). "The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2131).
Referring to Claim 16, Yang further teaches wherein the heat sink (12) is a substrate comprising a material (Au; par. 112 and 141) having a thermal conductivity greater than 150 W/mK.
Referring to Claim 25, Yang further teaches a first quaternary layer (13) disposed between the p-contact layer (2) and the absorber layer (4); and a second quaternary layer (14) disposed between the absorber layer (4) and the cliff layer (15).
Referring to Claim 28, Yang further teaches wherein the p-contact layer (2) is a p-doped InGaAs layer.
Referring to Claim 39, Yang teaches a method of manufacturing a charge-compensated modified uni-traveling carrier (CC-MUTC) photodiode comprising: forming a stack of functional layers onto a semiconductor substrate (1), the functional layers including: a p-contact layer (2) stacked on and in contact with the semiconductor substrate (1); an absorber layer (4) stacked on the p-contact layer (2); a cliff layer (15) stacked on the absorber layer (4); a drift layer (5) stacked on the cliff layer (15); an n-contact layer (9) stacked on the drift layer (5); connecting a first metal contact (10) to the p-contact layer (2); and connecting a second metal contact (12) to the n-contact layer (9). "The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2131).
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.
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 11 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 109273552 A) in view of Xu et al. (CN 115295646 A).
Referring to Claims 11 and 26, Yang teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 15 respectively but does not explicitly state wherein the p-contact layer has a thickness of 150 nm.
In the same field of endeavor, Xu teaches wherein the p-contact layer (212; p-type InGaAs) has a thickness of 100-200nm, inclusive of 150nm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to provide the p-contact of Yang to have a thickness in the range as taught by Xu, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 12 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 109273552 A) in view of Watanabe (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0359159).
Referring to Claims 12 and 27, Yang teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 15 respectively but does not explicitly state wherein the p-contact layer has a thickness of 900 nm.
In the same field of endeavor, Watanabe teaches a photodiode wherein the p-contact layer has a thickness of 900 nm (par. 92, 95 and 96).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to provide the p-contact of Yang to have a thickness in the range as taught by Watanabe, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 14 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 109273552 A).
Referring to claims 14 and 29, Yang teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 15 respectively but does not explicitly state wherein the p-contact layer (2) is a p-type InP layer. Yang does teach many doped layers that may comprise either InP or InGaAs (i.e. p-type layer 3 or n-type layers 7-9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to choose either InGAs or InP for the p-contact of Yang, 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. It is well settled that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. V. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Ritchie V. Vast Resources Inc. d/b/a Topco Sales, 90 USPQ2d 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2009); and MPEP § 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9, 17-24, 31, 32 and 37 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the CC-MUTC photodiode wherein the absorber layer comprises a plurality of layers including at least one undepleted absorber layer and at least one depleted absorber layer in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 1 and 2. Claims 3-9 include the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the flip-chip bonded CC-MUTC photodiode wherein the absorber layer comprises a plurality of layers including at least one undepleted absorber layer and at least one depleted absorber layer in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 15 and 17. Claims 18-24 include the limitations of claim 17.
Regarding Claim 31, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the CC-MUTC photodiode further comprising a thermally conductive submount on the second metal contact, the thermally conductive submount having a thermal conductivity of at least 300 W/mK, wherein the absorber layer includes an undepleted absorber layer, and wherein the undepleted absorber layer is not interposed between the drift layer and the thermally conductive submount in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 1 and 31. Claim 32 includes the limitations of claim 31.
Regarding Claim 37, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the CC-MUTC photodiode wherein an anti-reflective coating is formed on a second surface of the semiconductor substrate to receive light to provide to the functional stack through the semiconductor substrate, and wherein the p-contact layer is positioned between the anti-reflective coating and the absorber layer and the p-contact layer is absorptive to the infrared light in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 1 and 37.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Skogen (U.S. Patent 9,477,040), in the same field of endeavor, teaches the drift region (or collector region) (131) (Col. 5, Lines 49-56) and the photodiode having various components such as a p-layer, absorption region, cliff region, electron drift region and n-layer (Col. 10, Lines 23-35).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EARL N TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-8894. 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, William Kraig can be reached on (571) 272-8660. 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.
/EARL N TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
EARL N. TAYLOR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights