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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/4/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the random alloy" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, it was presumed applicant intended to disclose --a random alloy--.
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, 2, 6, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julien et al (US 2012/0120478 A1) in view of Ryu et al (WO 2007/067166 A1) and further in view of Zhang et al (CN 101811659 A).
In regard to claim 1, Julien discloses a semiconductor optical modulator (page 5, section [0107]-[0126], Figures 2-4, “2”) that is formed by stacking a plurality of semiconductor layers (page 5, sections [0116]-[0120], Figure 3, “22, 23, 24”) including an optical modulation layer (Figure 3 & 4, “23”) on a semiconductor substrate (Figure 3, “21,” re: AlN) and emits light by modulating an intensity (page 1, section [0015]) or a phase of light incident on the optical modulation layer (page 1, section [0019], page 3, section [0073], Claim 6), the semiconductor optical modulator comprising the optical modulation layer (Figures 4 & 5, “23”), wherein the optical modulation layer is formed by alternately stacking a quantum well layer (page 5, sections [0122]-[0126], Figure 4, re: quantum well layers “QW1, QW2, QW3”) and a barrier layer (Figure 4, re: barrier layers “BL0, BL1, BL2, BL3”), and the quantum well layer is formed in which the semiconductor layers having a layer thickness of two or more atomic layers (page 5, section [0124], re: quantum wells, each with a thickness of 4 to 6 monoatomic layers) are alternately and repeatedly stacked (page 5, sections [0122]-[0126], Figure 4, re: quantum well layers “QW1, QW2, QW3”), but does not specifically disclose wherein the barrier layers have a band gap larger than that of the quantum well layer or wherein the quantum well layer is formed using a digital alloy in which the semiconductor layers have different constituent elements or composition ratios.
Within the same field of endeavor, Ryu teaches that it is well known for quantum well structures to comprise a set of more than one quantum well layers and intervening barrier structures comprised of one or a multiplicity of layers with the energy band gap of the barrier structures larger than the energy band gap values of associated quantum well layers such that a multiplicity of quantum wells are formed with each well containing one or more discrete energy levels (page 9, lines 10-16) and Zhang et al teaches wherein it is desirable for quantum well layers to be formed using a digital alloy having different constituent elements for the purpose of introducing a larger degree of freedom to the design of the quantum structure and function and brings advantages on the control of the strain and interface of the quantum structure (Abstract and sections [0005]-[0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the barrier layers of Julien et al to have a band gap larger than that of the quantum well layer since Ryu teaches that it is well known for quantum well structures to comprise as claimed so that a multiplicity of quantum wells are formed with each well containing one or more discrete energy levels and for the quantum well layer of Julien et al to be formed using a digital alloy in which the semiconductor layers have different constituent elements or composition ratios since Zhang et al teaches wherein it is desirable for the purpose of introducing a larger degree of freedom to the design of the quantum structure and function and brings advantages on the control of the strain and interface of the quantum structure.
Regarding claim 2, Julien et al discloses wherein the semiconductor optical modulator is an electro-absorption type or a Mach-Zehnder type (pages 2-3, section [0046]).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang et al further teaches wherein the barrier layer is formed of a digital alloy for the purpose of improving the structure quality (section [0008]).
Regarding claim 7, Julien et al discloses as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein the optical modulation layer has a thickness of 20 nm or more and 500 nm or less.
However, Julien et al discloses wherein the optical modulation layer has a thickness of about 16.5 nm (page 5, sections [0122]-[0126], Figure 4, “23”) and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical modulation layer of Julien et al to have a thickness of 20 nm or more and 500 nm or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, modified Julien et al discloses as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein the layer thickness of the digital alloy is equal to or less than 8 atomic layers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the layer thickness of the digital alloy of modified Julien et al to be equal to or less than 8 atomic layers since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claims 11-16: a semiconductor optical modulator as claimed, specifically wherein the optical modulation layer is a semiconductor layer that is not formed with a quantum well and has a thickness of 20 nm or more and 500 nm or less and is formed using a digital alloy in which the semiconductor layers having a layer thickness of two or more atomic layers and having different constituent elements or composition ratios are alternately and repeatedly stacked.
Claims 5, 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 5: a semiconductor optical modulator as claimed, specifically wherein the optical modulation layer is a single quantum well layer formed of a quantum well layer having a thickness of 20 nm or more and 500 nm or less and the barrier layer.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 8: a semiconductor optical modulator as claimed, specifically wherein the digital alloy is formed by stacking a plurality of types of layers having different repetition periods.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 9: a semiconductor optical modulator as claimed, specifically wherein, among the plurality of semiconductor layers, a semiconductor layer closer to the optical modulation layer than an end portion in a stacking direction is formed of the digital alloy.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, taking into account the presumption(s) made in the examination of the claim.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 4: a semiconductor optical modulator as claimed, specifically wherein the quantum well layer is formed by stacking the digital alloy and the random alloy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-2324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 9:00 am - 6:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights