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 prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on April 12, 2024 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Five sheets of drawings were filed on April 12, 2024 and have been accepted by the examiner.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, and 6-14 are ejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
This application has a pre-amendment to the claims. In the pre-amendment, Applicant has amended one of the feature “the radiation-influencing element comprises a growth substrate into claim 1. Due to this amendment, the following dependent claims are in conflict with claim 1.
Regarding claims 6-8, the written description fails to teach the embodiment as recited in at least claim 6. The embodiment of claim 6 (Fig. 2A), is different from the embodiment of claim 1 (Fig. 1). In particular, the embodiment of Fig. 2A shows the radiation influencing element is integrated within the emitter 1 (pg-pub 2025/0237829, Para [0077]), the radiation influencing element 7 is within the semiconductor layer sequence 24 and semiconductor layer sequence 24 is within the light emitter 1. The Specification does not teach the embodiment of the combined limitations of claim 1 and claim 6 wherein the radiation influencing element comprises trenches and they are filled with a reflective material and the radiation influencing element is separate from the emitter.
Regarding claims 9-11, the written description fails to teach the embodiment as recited in at least claim 9 since the disclosure directly contradicts combined limitations of claim 1 and claim 9—In contrast to the exemplary embodiment in Figure 1, here no growth substrate 10 is arranged between the emitter 1 and the receiver array 4—(pg-pub 2025/0237829, Para [0089]).
Regarding claims 12-14, the written description fails to the embodiment as recited in claim 12 since the disclosure directly contradicts the combined limitations of claim 1 and claim 9. Carrying the teaching from paragraph [0089] that there is “no growth substrate 10” in Fig. 3A since they are replaced with nano wires 14. The embodiment of the radiation influencing element with the photonic crystal in Fig. 5B replaces the nano wires with photonic crystal 15. Therefore, the photonic crystal embodiment also has “no growth substrate 10” which is in conflict with claim 1.
Therefore, the written disclosure does not teach the embodiments in claims 1, and 6-14 as prompted by the pre-amendment of claim 1.
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 1, and 6-14 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 6-8 are considered indefinite because the limitations of claim 6 is in conflict with claim 1. The--radiation-influencing element comprises trenches in the radiation outcoupling surface of the emitter and the trenches are filled with a reflective material—is shown in Fig. 2A which excludes the radiation-influencing element comprises a growth substrate 10 as shown in Fig. 1 and recited in claim 1.
Claim 9-11 are considered indefinite because the combined features of claim 1 and of the limitations of claim 9 is in conflict with claim 1. Claim 1 recites—the radiation-influencing element comprises a growth substrate—and pg-pub 2025/0237829 in paragraph [0089] describes the radiation-influencing element with nano wire—In contrast to the exemplary embodiment in Figure 1, here no growth substrate 10 is arranged between the emitter 1 and the receiver array 4. Fig. 3A shows radiation-influencing element 7 comprises of nano wire 14 which excludes the radiation-influencing element comprises a growth substrate 10 as shown in Fig. 1 and recited in claim 1.
Claims 12-14 are considered indefinite because the combined features of claim 12 is in conflict with claim 1. Similar to the analysis of claim 9 above, the-—radiation influencing element comprises a photonic crystal—also does not have a growth substrate 10 (pg-pub 2005/0237829 in paragraph [0089] and [0094]) and as shown in Fig. 5A. This embodiment excludes the radiation-influencing element comprises a growth substrate 10 of Fig. 1 and recited in claim 1.
For the reasons above, claims 1, and 6-14 are considered indefinite.
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 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheller et al. (US 2021/0083141 A1, herein “Scheller”) in view of Lumb (US 2020/0081472 A1, herein “Lumb”) as evidenced by Raring et al. (US 10,587,090 B1, herein “Raring”).
Regarding Claim 1, Scheller discloses an optoelectronic component (100 in Fig. 1 or 1000 in Fig. 10), comprising:
an emitter (110 is an array of individual emitters 114) that is operated with an electrical input voltage (“low DC input voltages, [Para [0021]) and generates electromagnetic radiation (“emits photon”, Para [0039]) during operation, and
a plurality of receivers (photovoltaic elements 124) forming a receiver array (photovoltaic cell array 120), wherein the receiver array (120) converts electromagnetic radiation generated by the emitter during operation into an electrical output voltage (Para [0041]), wherein
radiation incoupling surfaces (surfaces of photovoltaic element 124 facing the emitters) are arranged on a radiation outcoupling surface of the emitter (surfaces of the individual emitters 114 facing the photovoltaic element);
radiation-influencing element (optical connector 130) is arranged between the emitter (110) and the receiver array (120), wherein the radiation-influencing element (130) directs electromagnetic radiation generated by the emitter (110) onto radiation incoupling surfaces of the receivers (individual receivers 124 of receiver array 120). Optical connector 130 (equivalent with “radiation-influencing element”) includes a planar waveguide, dimmer unit adapted to tune the output voltage of the optical transformer and guide the emitted photons from the light emitter 110 to the photovoltaic cell array (Para [0039]),
the receiver array (120) is arranged on a wafer that is directly connected to the radiation-influencing element (130, Para [0030]).
However, Scheller does not explicitly disclose the radiation-influencing element comprises a growth substrate on which the emitter is epitaxially grown.
The Specification defines a “growth substrate” to be a semiconductor layer that is epitaxially grown (see at least Para [0030], and [0036] of disclosure pg-pub 2025/0237829 A1).
Lumb teaches the blocking region 19 in the device Fig. 7(a) for coupling light from the light emitting devices 18 to photovoltaic region 20. Lumb further teaches the state of the art of monolithic optocoupler design improves the optical coupling efficiency and decreases manufacturing cost by epitaxially grown layers, thus monolithically integrating the emitter, optical coupler, and the photodiode (Para [0046]-[0048]).
Raring teaches photodiode or photodetector for vertical detection (“surface normal detection”), the photodiode can be integrated with the laser diode or waveguide element either in the same epitaxial layer structure, on the same substrate, or mounted on a common support member (Col. 18, line 65 to Col. 19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the optical connector 130 of Scheller’s invention with the teaching of Lumb. The blocking region 19 in Lumb’s device is structurally and functionally equivalent to the optical connector 130 of Scheller, optically transmitting and electrically insulating. However, Lumb does not explicitly teach the blocking region 19 is epitaxially grown or comprising “a growth substrate”. Lumb does teach the state of the art of integrating the optocoupler design by forming the photodiode devices “all made from the same epitaxially grown layers on an insulating substrate” (Para [0046]). Raring further explicitly teaches the photodiode can be integrated with the laser diode or waveguide element (equivalent as Scheller’s optical connector 130 and Lumb’s blocking region 19) in a photodetector that is configured for surface normal detection (the same photodetection direction of Scheller and Lumb). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teaching of Lumb as evidenced by Raring that integrating the waveguide (Scheller’s optical connector 130 or Lumb’s blocking region 19) by epitaxially integrating (growth substrate) the waveguide to the emitter or the photodiode would be an obvious modification to Scheller’s invention. One motivation for monolithically integrate the optocoupler is to decrease manufacturing cost and increase optical coupling efficiency from the emitter through the waveguide (blocking region 19) to the photovoltaic devices 20 (Lumb: Para [0046]).
PNG
media_image1.png
431
373
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical connector 130 of Scheller with the blocking region 19 of Lumb for light transference from emitters to the receivers of Scheller. The resulting modification would be a monolithic optical connector design wherein the high transparency material is grown substrate. One motivation would be to integrate the layers for reducing manufacturing cost and increase optical coupling efficiency (Lumb, Para [0046]).
Regarding the limitation—on which the emitter is epitaxially grown—the examiner considers this limitation to be product-by-process. In this case, the process does not impart any structure difference from the prior arts to Scheller in view of Lumb as Lumb is provided to teach the integrated structure of the emitter, radiation influencing element, and the receiver of claim 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
431
377
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Scheller in view of Lumb and Raring (herein “Scheller / Lumb / Raring”) teach the invention of claim 1, Scheller further discloses emitter (110) comprises light-emitting diode (Para [0024]) and the receiver array (120) comprises an array of photodiodes electrically connected in series (photovoltaic cells are photodiodes (Para [0030]), the photovoltaic cells are connected in series (Para [0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Scheller / Lumb /Raring teach the invention of claim 1, and Lumb further teaches the blocking region is a layer with high transparency to the light emitting section luminescence (Lumb, Para [0048]). The radiation incoupling surfaces of the receivers are applied to a main surface of the growth substrate that is facing away from the emitter.
The examiner notes, the term “facing” is not patentably distinct since the layers on micrometer scale and the layers are transparent. Therefore, the claim does not have a point of reference for the examiner to consider “facing toward” or “facing away”.
Regarding claim 5, Scheller / Lumb / Raring teach the invention of claim 4, Scheller further teaches the radiation incoupling surfaces of the receivers are arranged on a side of the receivers facing the wafer (Fig. 1). The examiner notes, the term “facing” is not patentably distinct since the layers on micrometer scale and the layers are transparent. Therefore, the claim does not have a point of reference for the examiner to consider “facing toward” or “facing away”.
Regarding claims 12-14, Scheller / Lumb /Raring teach the invention of claim 1, wherein Scheller discloses the radiation-influencing element 124 is arranged between the emitter 110 and the receivers 124 to couple to the radiation outcoupling surface of the emitter 110, the radiation-influencing element 124 is configured to guide electromagnetic radiation generated by the emitter during operation. The radiation-influencing element is optically connected to the radiation incoupling surface of one of the receivers 124. The optoelectronic component as taught by Scheller / Lumb / Raring is consistent with the embodiment recited in Claim 1 wherein the radiation-influencing element comprises a growth substrate and without the nano wires formed in the photonic crystals, per Specification (page 25, lines 1-5, page 26, line 26- page 27, line 4 and Drawings Figs. 1, 3A, 4, and 5A).
Regarding claim 15, Scheller / Lumb / Raring teach the invention of claim 1, and Scheller further teaches the radiation-influencing element (connector 130) comprises a micro lens array and a microlens is arranged on the radiation incoupling surface of a receiver which focuses the electromagnetic radiation generated by the emitter during operation onto the radiation incoupling surface of the receiver (Para [0033]).
Regarding claim 17, Scheller / Lumb / Raring teach the invention of claim 1, and Scheller further teaches intermediate spaces between the receivers of the receiver array are filled with a dielectric material. Fig. 8 shows photovoltaic cell 824a and 824b have passivation material 880 filled therein (Paras [0051] and [0074]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheller / Lumb / Raring as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flesner et al. (US 5,248,931, A, herein “Flesner”).
Scheller / Lumb / Raring teach the invention of claim 1, but Scheller / Lumb / Raring is silent to the electrical contact points of the receiver are arranged on a side of the receiver opposite to the radiation incoupling surface, and the electrical contact points of the receiver are configured for an electrical interconnection of the plurality of receivers in the receiver array, wherein the radiation incoupling surface of the receivers is free of electrical contact elements for the electrical interconnection of the plurality of receivers.
Flesner teaches a photovoltaic cell array 3 in Fig. 2 that is formed on sapphire substrate 19. In Fig. 18, Flesner teaches the electrical contact points 18 in the photocell array 3 are arranged on a side of the receiver opposite to the radiation incoupling surface. The examiner considers the silicon dioxide protective layer 27 forms a barrier between the cell array contact points 18 shown in Fig. 5 such that the contact points are opposite to the radiation incoupling surface. The surface layers are thin and transparent, therefore, the barrier layer 27 would be considered an opposite side of the receiver. The electrical contact points 18 of the receiver are configured for an electrical interconnection of the plurality of receivers 22c in the receiver array, wherein the radiation incoupling surface of the receiver is free of electrical contact elements for the electrical interconnection of the plurality of receivers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the silicon dioxide protective layer 27 of Flesner is a planarization layer, insulating layer, and a protective layer that is commonly known to form on a semiconductor integrated circuit substrate. Such protective layer would have been obvious to modify the photovoltaic device of Scheller / Lumb / Raring as the top planarized barrier of the receiver array. One motivation would be to protect the integrated circuit from short circuiting and environmental degradation.
Claims 6, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheller / Lumb / Raring as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hattori et al. (US 8,354,681 B2, herein “Hattori”).
Regarding claim 6, 8, and 16 Scheller / Lumb teach the invention of claim 1, but Scheller / Lumb / Raring is silent to the radiation-influencing element comprises trenches in the radiation outcoupling surface of the emitter and the trenches are filled with a reflective material.
Hattori teaches a semiconductor light emitting element (substrate 1, emitting layer 2) having a recessed portion formed in its surface, the recessed portion has a V-shaped cross section. A reflective layer (4) is formed on an inner surface of the recessed portion (Figs. 1-3, and 15). Hattori’s recess is formed in the light emitter on the emitting surface wherein the high reflecting layer 4 is formed on the inner surface such that the light emitted toward the first electrode 5 is caused to reflect at the high-reflecting layer 4 thereby enabling the light to take up therefrom. As a result, light extraction efficiency is enhanced (Col. 3, lines 34-43). Hattori further teaches
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the modification in the light emitting element of Hattori would be modifiable to the emitters of Scheller / Lumb / Raring by forming the reflective recess on the emitting surface that is coupled to the radiation incoupling surface of the radiation influencing element. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would also recognize the modification of forming the reflective recess(es) between the receivers. One motivation would be to increase the emission and receiving radiation efficiency thus increasing the output voltage.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheller / Lumb / Raring in view of Hattori as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ko et al. (KR 101921956 B1, herein “Ko”)
Scheller / Lumb /Raring in view of Hattori (herein “Scheller / Lumb / Raring /Hattori”) teach the invention of claim 6, but Scheller / Lumb / Raring / Hattori do not teach the trenches are arranged over the intermediate spaces between the receivers in the receiver array such that the electromagnetic radiation generated by the emitter during operation is not absorbed in the intermediate spaces.
Ko teaches in a solar light receiving unit 310 forming a reflective mirror layer 510 over the intermediate spaces between the receivers 314 in the receiver array or unit 310 such that electromagnetic radiation generated during operation is not absorbed in the intermediate spaces. Ko further teaches light that is emitted at an angle of less than 30 degrees or at an angle exceeding 150 degrees is not received by the light receiving unit. Thus, by providing the reflective mirror layer 510 the light receiving unit can receive all the light (see machine-translation attached).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the reflective layer in the intermediate spaces between the receiver of Ko would be recognized as modifiable to the receiver array in the invention of Scheller / Lumb / Raring / Hattori. One motivation would be to errant photon recovery thus maximizing the received radiation and increase the voltage output.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheller in view of Duane et al. (US 8,889,455 B2, herein “Duane”).
Scheller discloses an optoelectronic component (100 in Fig. 1 or 1000 in Fig. 10), comprising:
an emitter (110 is an array of individual emitters 114) that is operated with an electrical input voltage (“low DC input voltages”, Para [0021]) and generates electromagnetic radiation (“emits photon”, Para [0039]) during operation, and
a plurality of receivers (photovoltaic elements 124) forming a receiver array (photovoltaic cell array 120), wherein the receiver array (120) converts electromagnetic radiation generated by the emitter during operation into an electrical output voltage (Para [0041]), wherein
radiation incoupling surfaces (surfaces of photovoltaic element 124 closer the emitters) are arranged on a radiation output coupling surface of the emitter (surfaces of the individual emitters 114 facing the photovoltaic element);
radiation-influencing element (optical connector 130) is arranged between the emitter (110) and the receiver array (120), wherein the radiation-influencing element (130) directs electromagnetic radiation generated by the emitter (110) onto radiation incoupling surfaces of the receivers (individual receivers 124 of receiver array 120). Radiation-influencing element (optical connector 130) includes a planar waveguide, dimmer unit adapted to tune the output voltage of the optical transformer and guide the emitted photon from the light emitter (110) to the photovoltaic cell array (Para [0039]),
the receiver array (120) is arranged on a wafer that is directly connected to the radiation-influencing element (130, Para [0030]).
However, Scheller does not teach a radiation-influencing element comprises an array of nano wires arranged on the radiation outcoupling surface of the emitter, and the nano wires are configured as waveguides for electromagnetic radiation generated by the emitter during operation.
Duane teaches a waveguide having nanowires (Col. 3, lines 34-45). The nanostructured waveguide comprising a nanowire on a substrate having a front side and a back-side that is exposed to incoming radiation. The device is disposed on the substrate and an image sensing disposed on the front side of the nanowire waveguide. The nanowire is configured to be a channel to transmit selective wavelength (Col.3, lines 34-43). The nanowires function as spectral filters (Col. 13, lines 60-67 and Col. 14, lines 1-5). In one embodiment the nanowire is arranged to direct light in a downward direction towards the substrate. The waveguide can further comprise a plurality of nanowires arranged in an upstanding configuration on the planar photodetector surface and in epitaxial connection with the planar photodetector layer (Col. 5, line 61 to Col. 6, line 6). This allows the nanowires in the waveguide to collect only the desired wavelengths to corresponding photodiodes being coupled to the waveguide. This allows the device to function as an efficient light to electricity converter (Col. 14, lines 25-45). In Fig. 3C Duane teaches the nanowire can function as a waveguide with spectral filter properties (Col. 13, lines 60-67 and Col. 14, lines 1-5). The wavelengths that are not filtered out are being guided to the planar photodetectors on the substrate (Col. 17, line 63 – Col. 18, line 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
607
809
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical connector 130 of Scheller with the nanowire waveguide of Duane. The nanowire waveguide in Duane’s invention functions as a channel to transmit selective wavelength to the photodiode in the same way as Scheller’s optical connector 130 channels light from the emitter to the receivers. Therefore, modifying the optical connector 130 of Scheller to comprise of nanowire as taught by Duane would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Thus, including nano wires within waveguide as suggested by Duane will result in a device to convert light to electricity more efficiently (Col. 14, lines 25-45). One motivation would be to employ the nanowires waveguide solar cells to increase output electricity by increasing the coupling efficiency from emitters to receivers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheller in view of Vuckovic et al. (US 7,778,296 B1, herein “Vuckovic”).
Scheller discloses an optoelectronic component (100 in Fig. 1 or 1000 in Fig. 10), comprising:
an emitter (110 is an array of individual emitters 114) that is operated with an electrical input voltage (“low DC input voltages”, Para [0021]) and generates electromagnetic radiation (“emits photon”, Para [0039]) during operation, and
a plurality of receivers (photovoltaic elements 124) forming a receiver array (photovoltaic cell array 120), wherein the receiver array (120) converts electromagnetic radiation generated by the emitter during operation into an electrical output voltage (Para [0041]), wherein
radiation incoupling surfaces (surfaces of photovoltaic element 124 closer the emitters) are arranged on a radiation output coupling surface of the emitter (surfaces of the individual emitters 114 facing the photovoltaic element);
radiation-influencing element (optical connector 130) is arranged between the emitter (110) and the receiver array (120), wherein the radiation-influencing element (130) directs electromagnetic radiation generated by the emitter (110) onto radiation incoupling surfaces of the receivers (individual receivers 124 of receiver array 120). Radiation-influencing element (optical connector 130) includes a planar waveguide, dimmer unit adapted to tune the output voltage of the optical transformer and guide the emitted photon from the light emitter (110) to the photovoltaic cell array (Para [0039]),
the receiver array (120) is arranged on a wafer that is directly connected to the radiation-influencing element (130, Para [0030]).
However, Scheller does not disclose the radiation-influencing element comprises a photonic crystal that is arranged on the radiation outcoupling surface of the emitter, and the photonic crystal comprises a plurality of regions, wherein the regions are configured to deflect electromagnetic radiation generated by the emitter during operation into predetermined solid angle regions in which radiation incoupling surfaces of the receivers are located.
Vukovic teaches photonic crystals when used with light emitters facilitate desirable control over the radiative properties of the emitters. High-Q cavities defined in photonic crystals confine photons to small volume, facilitating large light matter interaction, which can be used in applications involving light sources, and photodetectors. In these applications the photonic crystal cavity enhances the generation rate for photons and also facilitates high collection [of photons] efficiency (Col. 1, lines 55-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the optical connector (130 which is a light coupling layer between the light emitters and photodetector) of Scheller with a photonic crystal substrate wherein the microcavities are tuned for controlling and confining light of a particular wavelength range (Col. 1, lines 40-47). The tuned photonic band gap of the crystal would be a forbidden zone in which light of a particular wavelength range is blocked (“configured to deflect electromagnetic radiation”) such that only light of a particular wavelength range is “selectively passed through the crystal structure” (Col. 1, lines 46-54). The modified photonic crystal in place of the optical connector 130 would effectively functions as a photon directing region that only permits a particular wavelength range to reach the receivers 140 of Scheller. One motivation for employing photonic crystal as the radiation-influencing element is the relatively thin layer (Col. 1, lines 31-49) with strong light confinement. Therefore, the resulting optoelectonic component would have high photon coupling efficiency while being compact in the micron scale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PTO-892:F-G references are relevant to the instant application. Quitoriano et al. (US 7,474,811 B2, discloses nanowire for optical field confinement. Guo (US 8,941,126 B2) discloses semiconductor electricity converter unit. Masato et al. (ACS Photonics, December 2020) discloses an integrated nanowire in photonic crystal structure for guiding light and converting photons to electricity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin D Chiem whose telephone number is (571)272-3102. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6 pm.
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, Thomas A. Hollweg can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
/ERIN D CHIEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights