Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the configurations of claims 7-8 and 12-16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The subject matter of base claim 10 is shown only in figure 5. However, figure 5 does not depict an intrinsic semiconductor region between the first and second optical coupling regions (claims 12 and 13); an insulator between the first and second optical coupling regions (claim 14); differing widths of the first and second optical coupling regions (claims 7 and 15); or part of the first optical coupling region covering a top surface and a sidewall of the second optical coupling region (claims 8 and 16).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification Objection
The specification is objected to because line 7 of [0043] reads "doing" instead of "doping".
Duplicate Claims
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Although they are worded differently, there does not appear to be any actual difference in scope between claims 1 and 10.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12124119 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of '119 (which includes all the limitations of its ancestor claims 1 and 2) anticipates instant claims 1 and 10. Although '119 claim 1 sets forth the orderings of doping concentrations and heights of the first plurality of regions in terms of distance from the optical coupling region, this is equivalent to specifying a reverse ordering in terms of distance from the electrical coupling region, as is currently claimed. Similarly, '119 claim 4 recites that the doping concentration of the first electrical coupling region is larger than a maximum doping concentration of the first plurality of regions, which is equivalent to specifying that the maximum doping concentration of the first plurality of regions is smaller than that of the first electrical coupling region, as is currently claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 4-6, 9-12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0336658 A1 in view of US 2017/0059774 A1 and US 2020/0124883 A1.
Claim 1: '658 discloses an optical modulator, comprising (see mainly fig. 2):
a waveguide, comprising:
a first optical coupling region ("P side of the diode (PN junction)" in [0024]) doped with first dopants (P-type at a density of 2E18 per cubic cm);
a first electrical coupling region (P+++ region) doped with the first dopants (P-type at a density of 2E20 / cm3); and
a first plurality of regions (P- and P++ regions) doped with the first dopants and sandwiched between the first optical coupling region and the first electrical coupling region, wherein the first plurality of regions have respective decreasing doping concentrations as distances of the first plurality of regions increase from the first electrical coupling region (P++ has 5E18 / cm3, P- has 3E17 / cm3), and a maximum doping concentration of the first plurality of regions (5E18 / cm3) is smaller than a doping concentration of the first electrical coupling region (2E20 / cm3).
'658 does not disclose that the first plurality of regions have respective decreasing heights as the distances of the first plurality of regions increase from the first electrical coupling region.
The concept of stepwise decreasing the thickness of a slab region with increasing distance away from an electrical coupling region in an optical modulator, in order to lower the overall resistance of the slab region compared to a uniformly thin slab region, was already demonstrated by '774 and '883. See especially fig. 1, [0005]-[0016], and [0033]-[0036] of '774, and figs. 33A-33B, [0158]-[0159], and [0163]-[0164] of '883. Accordingly a person of ordinary skill in the art could have provided the first plurality of regions of '658 with respective decreasing heights away from the first electrical coupling region with predictable results. Thus it would have been obvious to such a person before the effective filing date of claim 1 to do so, motivated by a desire to lower the resistance of the first plurality of regions, which in turn could beneficially increase the bandwidth of the '658 modulator (see e.g. [0159] of '883) and/or lower its power consumption.
Claim 2: '658 itself does not disclose that a height of the first electrical coupling region is greater than a maximum height of the first plurality of regions. However such an arrangement is shown in fig. 1 of '774 wherein ZD is higher than P2 and P1. Thus a person of ordinary skill in the art could have set the height of the first electrical coupling region to be greater than a maximum height of the first plurality of regions with predictable results. Hence it would have been obvious to such a person before the effective filing date of claim 2 to do so, motivated for example by a desire to shorten the length of a conductive via (unlabeled in '658 fig. 1A, but corresponding to PC in '774) which would be connected to the first electrical coupling region.
Claim 4: Following the modification proposed above with regard to claim 2, it would further have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to set a height of the first electrical coupling region equal to a height of the first optical coupling region. A motivation would have been a desire to simplify the manufacturing process since having the electrical coupling region at the same height as the optical coupling region would have avoided the need for a separate etching step in forming the electrical coupling region.
Claim 5: '658 does not illustrate conductive connectors disposed on the first electrical coupling region and an insulating layer covering the waveguide and the conductive connectors. Official notice is taken of the fact that such features were well known in the art before the effective filing date of claim 5. No unpredictable result would have resulted from including such features in the '658 modulator. Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claim 5 to provide such features for the '658 structure, motivated by a desire to obtain a complete and operative device.
Claim 6: The waveguide in the modification proposed above further comprises: a second optical coupling region ("N side of the diode" in [0026] of '658) abutting the first optical coupling region ([0026] states there is no gap between the p-doped side and n-doped side in the p-n junction embodiment) and doped with second dopants (N-type at a density of 2E18 / cm3), wherein the first dopants and the second dopants are of different conductivity types;
a second electrical coupling region (N+++ region) doped with the second dopants (N+++ doped at 2E20 / cm3); and
a second plurality of regions (N- and N++ regions) doped with the second dopants and sandwiched between the second optical coupling region and the second electrical coupling region, wherein the second plurality of regions have respective decreasing doping concentrations as distances of the second plurality of regions increase from the second electrical coupling region, and the second plurality of regions have respective decreasing heights as the distances of the second plurality of regions increase from the second electrical coupling region (by symmetric application of the modification from claim 1).
Claim 9: The first dopants are p-type dopants and the second dopants are n-type dopants.
Claim 10: The modification of '658 in view of '774 and '883 as proposed above with regard to claim 1 would have yielded an optical modulator, comprising:
a waveguide, comprising:
a first optical coupling region and a first electrical coupling region doped with first dopants; and
a first plurality of regions doped with the first dopants and arranged between the first optical coupling region and the first electrical coupling region, wherein a doping concentration of the first plurality of regions decreases from the first electrical coupling region towards the first optical coupling region, a height of the first plurality of regions decreases from the first electrical coupling region towards the first optical coupling region, and a maximum doping concentration of the first plurality of regions is smaller than a doping concentration of the first electrical coupling region.
Claim 11: An area of a boundary between the first electrical coupling region and the first plurality of regions is larger than an area of a boundary between the first optical coupling region and the first plurality of regions (see above with regard to claim 2).
Claim 12: The waveguide further comprises: a second optical coupling region; and an intrinsic semiconductor region sandwiched between the first optical coupling region and the second optical coupling region. More particularly, [0026] of '658 discloses that in an alternative embodiment the device can use a p-i-n junction.
Claim 17: The waveguide further comprises a second optical coupling region doped with second dopants, and the first dopants are p-type dopants and the second dopants are n-type dopants (see above with regard to claims 6 and 9).
Claims 7-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0336658 A1 in view of US 2017/0059774 A1 and US 2020/0124883 A1, as applied above to claims 1 and 10, further in view of US 2010/0080504 A1.
'658 in view of '774 and '883 does not disclose that a width of the first optical coupling region is greater than a width of the second optical coupling region (claims 7 and 15) or that the first optical coupling region covers a top surface and a sidewall of the second optical coupling region (claims 8 and 16).
'504 discloses in fig. 1 a bent pn junction in which one optical coupling region is wider than the other optical coupling region, and also covers a top surface and a sidewall of the other optical coupling region. The bent junction shape creates greater overlap between the charge carriers and the waveguide mode than either a purely vertical or purely horizontal junction shape, leading to improved efficiency ([0014]-[0015], [0033], etc.). A person of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the optical coupling regions in the '658 / '774 / '883 device to create a bent pn junction as suggested by '504, with predictable results. Thus it would have been obvious to such a person before the effective filing date of claims 7-8 and 15-16 to do so, motivated by an expectation of achieving higher modulation efficiency.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0336658 A1 in view of US 2017/0059774 A1 and US 2020/0124883 A1, further in view of US 2018/0059446 A1.
Claim 18: '658 modified in view of '774 and '883 as proposed above with regard to claim 1 would have yielded:
an optical modulator, comprising:
a first optical coupling region doped with first dopants;
a first electrical coupling region doped with the first dopants; and
a first plurality of regions doped with the first dopants and sandwiched between the first optical coupling region and the first electrical coupling region, wherein the first plurality of regions have respective decreasing doping concentrations as distances of the first plurality of regions increase from the first electrical coupling region, the first plurality of regions have respective decreasing heights as the distances of the first plurality of regions increase from the first electrical coupling region, and a maximum doping concentration of the first plurality of regions is smaller than a doping concentration of the first electrical coupling region.
'658 in view of '774 and '883 does not disclose a package which includes the optical modulator, and which further includes a processor and a driver configured to drive the optical modulator, wherein the driver is electrically connected to the processor. '446 discloses a package (fig. 1) comprising a processor 140, an optical modulator 106, and a modulator driver 590 (fig. 2) which is electrically connected to the processor ([0022], [0045], [0053], [0075], claim 21). A person of ordinary skill in the art could have assembled into a package the '658 / '774 / '883 optical modulator, a processor, and a driver in the manner exemplified by '446, and the results would have been predictable. Thus it would have been obvious to such a person before the effective filing date of claim 18 to do so, motivated by a desire to achieve a compact system.
Claim 19: The optical modulator further comprises: a second optical coupling region abutting the first optical coupling region and doped with second dopants, wherein the first dopants and the second dopants are of different conductivity types; a second electrical coupling region doped with the second dopants; and a second plurality of regions doped with the second dopants and sandwiched between the second optical coupling region and the second electrical coupling region, wherein the second plurality of regions have respective decreasing doping concentrations as distances of the second plurality of regions increase from the second electrical coupling region, and the second plurality of regions have respective decreasing heights as the distances of the second plurality of regions increase from the second electrical coupling region (see above with regard to claim 6).
Claim 20: A height of the first electrical coupling region is greater than a maximum height of the first plurality of regions, and a height of the second electrical coupling region is greater than a maximum height of the second plurality of regions (see above with regard to claim 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 13-14 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 their respective base claims and all applicable intervening claims.
Contact Information
Examiner: 571-272-2360
Examiner's direct supervisor: 571-272-2397
Official correspondence by fax: 571-273-8300
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Should you have questions about Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Michael Stahl/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights