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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
At least claims 1, 2 and 3 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 and 20 respectively of copending Application No. 18/716,534 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each and every limitation in the claims of the current application can be found in the respective claims of the ‘534 reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0101082 to Yu et al in view of CN 11-379871 to Cui.
In regards to claim 1, Yu recites a photodetector (Figures 1, 2A & 2B), comprising a waveguide structure (101 & 106) and a light trapping structure (105/205; [0091]), wherein the waveguide structure extends into the light trapping structure; a first side, on which a first sidewall of the waveguide structure is positioned, is tangent to a second side, on which a second sidewall of the light trapping structure is positioned; and the waveguide structure is configured to import incident light into the light trapping structure in a direction tangent to the first side; the imported light is confined to travel within the light trapping structure by total internal reflection of sidewalls of the light trapping structure. But Yu fails to expressly recite an absorption structure positioned on the light trapping structure; the coupled light is confined to travel annularly within the absorption structure by total internal reflection of sidewalls of the absorption structure, and the coupled light is converted into electrons and holes. However, Cui teaches a photodetector having an absorption structure (30). Cui further teaches the light trapping structure section of the waveguide to annular (claim 1). Cui teaches these features to improve the responsiveness of the photodetector without prolonging the absorption length and having no influence on the bandwidth. Since Yu and Cui both teach photodetectors are both from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided an absorption structure positioned on the light trapping structure; the coupled light is confined to travel annularly within the absorption structure by total internal reflection of sidewalls of the absorption structure, and the coupled light is converted into electrons and holes for a more advantageous responsiveness of the photodetector.
In regards to claim 2, Yu in view of Cui teaches a shape of a projection of the waveguide structure on a preset plane comprises an elongated shape; a shape of a projection of the light trapping structure on the preset plane comprises an enclosed shape formed by at least one straight line and/or at least one curve; and an angle formed by the second side, on which the second sidewall of the light trapping structure is positioned, and a third side, on which a third sidewall of the light trapping structure is positioned, is an obtuse angle; and the preset plane is perpendicular to a direction of a thickness of the light trapping structure, and the third sidewall is a sidewall where the incident light is reflected for a first time after the incident light enters the light trapping structure. [0091]
In regards to claim 3, Yu in view of Cui teaches the shape of the projection of the light trapping structure on the preset plane comprises one of: a circle; an enclosed shape formed by connecting a plurality of curves; an enclosed shape formed by connecting a plurality of straight lines and a plurality of curves; or a polygon. [0091]
In regards to claim 5, Yu in view of Cui teaches the projection of the light trapping structure (105/205 of Yu) on the preset plane covers a projection of the absorption structure (30 of Cui) on the preset plane.
In regards to claims 6 and 7, Yu in view of Cui teaches a slab structure (220a & 220b), a first doped structure, a first doped region (208), a second doped region (209), a first electrode (232a & 232b) and a second electrode (232a & 232b), wherein the slab structure surrounds the waveguide structure and the light trapping structure; and a thickness of the waveguide structure is greater than a thickness of the slab structure; the first doped structure is positioned in the slab structure and surrounds the light trapping structure; the first doped region is positioned on a surface of the first doped structure and a region with a certain depth downward from the surface of the first doped structure; the second doped region is positioned on a surface of the absorption structure and a region with a certain depth downward from the surface of the absorption structure; the first electrode is positioned on the first doped region, and the first electrode is configured to collect electrons or holes flowing sequentially along the absorption structure, the light trapping structure, the first doped structure, and the first doped region; and the second electrode is positioned on the second doped region, and the second electrode is configured to collect electrons or holes flowing sequentially along the absorption structure and the second doped region, wherein the thickness of the waveguide structure is the same as a thickness of the light trapping structure, and the thickness of the waveguide structure is greater than the thickness of the slab structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8 and 9 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.
In regards to claim 4, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the polygon comprises a regular polygon and has a number of sides greater than or equal to 6 in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claims 8 and 9, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a second doped structure and a recessed structure, wherein the second doped structure is positioned between the slab structure and the light trapping structure; a thickness of the second doped structure is less than a thickness of the light trapping structure, the thickness of the second doped structure is less than a thickness of the first doped structure; and the thickness of the waveguide structure is the same as the thickness of the light trapping structure; the recessed structure is positioned between the slab structure and the waveguide structure; a thickness of the recessed structure is less than the thickness of the slab structure, and the thickness of the recessed structure is less than the thickness of the waveguide structure; and the first electrode is further configured to collect electrons or holes flowing sequentially along the absorption structure, the light trapping structure, the second doped structure, the first doped structure, and the first doped region in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
References Cited
The references cited made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements have been considered and made of record. Note attached copy of forms PTO-1449.
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINA M WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, 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.
/TINA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights