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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, & 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guter et al. (EP3082169A1) [Hereinafter Guter] & Hseih (TWI732207B) [Hereinafter Hseih].
Regarding claim 1, Guter teaches An optoelectronic device comprising:
a transmitter configured to emit electromagnetic radiation and to be operated with an input voltage [fig. 4, transmitter module S, para 25-26,
a carrier [fig. 4, isolator IS, para 26] for the transmitter (fig. 4, S), which comprises a top surface [fig 4] and a bottom surface [fig. 4],
a first receiver [fig. 4, semiconductor diode D1/D2, para 27] and a second receiver [fig. 4, semiconductor diode D3, para 27],
each configured to receive at least part of the electromagnetic radiation and to supply at least part of an output voltage [para 27 & 29-30],
wherein the transmitter comprises at least one surface emitter [para 19],
the at least one surface emitter of the transmitter is secured to the top surface of the carrier and radiates at least part of the electromagnetic radiation through the carrier [fig. 4; wherein the transmitter which comprises a surface emitter is on top of the carrier IS and the light radiates through the carrier],
the first receiver (fig. 4, D1/D2) and the second receiver (fig. 4, D3) each comprise at least one photodiode [para 27; wherein photodiodes are built using p-n junctions], and
the first receiver (fig. 4, D1/D2) is arranged at the bottom surface of the carrier (fig. 4, IS).
Guter fails to explicitly disclose and the second receiver is arranged at the top surface of the carrier.
However, Hseih teaches and the second receiver [fig. 2A, receivers 4] is arranged at the top surface of the carrier [fig. 2A, printed circuit board 5, “the transmitter 3 and the receiver 4 are carried by the printed circuit board 5”].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the second receiver to be arranged at the top of the carrier to enhance packaging and interconnect density thereby reducing the need for long connections
Regarding claim 4, Guter/Hseih teaches The optoelectronic device as claimed in a claim 1 comprising
further receivers [Guter, fig. 4, semiconductor diode D4, para 27] configured to receive part of the electromagnetic radiation (Guter, fig. 4, L) and to supply part of an output voltage [Guter, para 27],
wherein each further receiver comprises at least one photodiode [Guter, fig. 4, wherein photodiodes are built by p-n junctions D4].
Regarding claim 9, Guter/Hseih teaches The optoelectronic device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the first receiver (Guter, fig. 4, D1/D2) is in direct contact with the carrier (Guter, fig. 4, IS).
Regarding claim 10, Guter/Hseih teaches The optoelectronic device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the at least one photodiode [Guter, fig. 4, diode D1, para 27] of the first receiver (Guter, fig. 4, D1/D2) is bonded to the bottom surface of the carrier (fig. 4, IS).
Regarding claim 7, Guter/Hseih teaches The optoelectronic device as claimed in claim 1 comprising
a third receiver [Guter, fig. 4, D4, para 27] and/or a fourth receiver and/or a fifth receiver and/or a sixth receiver.
a plurality of receivers [Hseih, fig. 2A, receivers 4] arranged laterally with respect to the transmitter [Hseih, fig. 2A, transmitters 3, “ the plurality of transmitters 3 and the plurality of receivers 4 can be arranged in an interleaved manner or an L-shaped array”].
Regarding claim 8, Guter/Hseih teaches The optoelectronic device as claimed in claim 7,
wherein a radiation splitter [Guter, fig. 4, para 19; “the transmitter module has an optical mirror for the wavelength of the transmitter”] is disposed downstream of the transmitter at the top surface and/or the bottom surface of the carrier [Guter, fig. 4, top surface of carrier IS].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guter & Hseih as applied to claims 1, 4, & 9-10 and further in view of Naruo et al. (JPH06347917A).
Regarding claim 2, Guter/Hseih teaches The optoelectronic device as claimed in claim 1,
the first receiver (Guter, fig. 4 D1/D2) and/or the second receiver (Guter, fig. 4, D3) comprises a plurality of photodiodes interconnected in series with one another [Guter, para 27].
Guter/Hseih fails to explicitly disclose wherein the input voltage is less than the output voltage.
However, Naruo teaches wherein the input voltage is less than the output voltage [para 18-19; wherein the input voltage Vt is less than the output voltage V, “the light current output generated, the photoelectric current output is converted to a voltage output by the resistor R1.” to turn the device on.].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the receiver comprising a plurality of diodes wherein the output voltage is less than the input voltage to amplify the optical signal while maintaining linearity for further processing.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guter & Hseih as applied to claims 1, 4, & 9-10 and further in view of Matsuda et al. (US 5533041).
Regarding claim 6, Guter/Hseih teaches The optoelectronic device as claimed in claim 1.
Guter/Hseih fails to explicitly disclose wherein the transmitter and the second receiver are in direct contact with one another.
However Matsuda teaches wherein the transmitter [fig. 2, optical transmission region B] and a receiver [fig. 2, optical reception region A, “an optical reception region (hereinafter called "optical reception region A") for detecting received light and converting the received light into electric signals.”] are in direct contact with one another [fig. 2].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the transmitter and receiver to be in direct contact to reduce noise and preventing voltage spikes thereby enhancing the reliability of the device.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guter & Hseih as applied to claims 1, 4, & 9-10 and further in view of Yue et al. (CN110112148A).
Regarding claim 11, Guter/Hseih teaches The optoelectronic device as claimed in claim 1.
Guter fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one photodiode of the first receiver is epitaxially grown on the bottom surface of the carrier.
However, Yue teaches wherein the at least one photodiode of the first receiver [fig. 2C, light emitting diode epitaxial structure 210] is epitaxially grown on the bottom surface of the carrier [fig. 2C, substrate 200, “. . .a light emitting diode epitaxial structure 210 formed on the substrate.”].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the photodiode to be epitaxially grown on the bottom surface of the carrier to reduce effects of lattice mismatch during heteroepitaxial growth to affect its luminous efficiency.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guter & Hseih as applied to claims 1, 4, & 9-10 and further in view of Kelem et al. (CN 107567671A).
Regarding claim 12, Guter/Hseih teaches The optoelectronic device as claimed in claim 1.
Guter fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one surface emitter of the transmitter is epitaxially grown on the top surface of the carrier.
However Kelem teaches wherein the at least one surface emitter of the transmitter [fig. 5, emitter single emitter101] is epitaxially grown on the top surface of the carrier [“In order to generate a laser, each single emitter has a recombination zone between the p and n doped regions of the multilayer epitaxial structure of the respective single emitter. These epitaxial structures are multilayer structures of epitaxial layers that are applied to an epitaxial substrate. The epitaxial substrate is not completely covered by the epitaxial structure, so that the epitaxial substrate can also be electrically contacted by means of the contact window on the front side”].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the emitter of the transmitter to be epitaxially grown on the top surface of the carrier to achieve high quality defect-free doped layers that improve light efficiency and overall device performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 & 13 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 3, Guter/Hseih teaches The optoelectronic device as claimed in claim 1.
The prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose wherein the input voltage is greater than the output voltage and
the transmitter comprises a plurality of surface emitters interconnected in series with one another.
Thereby claim 3 contains allowable subject matter in light of the additional limitations recited therein and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 13, Guter/Hseih teaches The optoelectronic device as claimed in claim 1.
The prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one photodiode of the first receiver is epitaxially grown on the bottom surface of the carrier and
the at least one surface emitter of the transmitter is epitaxially grown on the top surface of the carrier.
Thereby claim 13 contains allowable subject matter in light of the additional limitations recited therein and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELIX B ANDREWS whose telephone number is (703)756-1074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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 Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/FELIX B ANDREWS/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights