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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion to combine Chang-Hasnain with Descos because Chang-Hasnain’s corrugations are perpendicular to the direction of propagation and reflection whereas Descos has the ribbon guide as parallel to the plane of propagation. Examiner agrees with the stated facts that the two pieces of art teach differences in how the Bragg mirrors are used but not in the argument that one skilled in the art would not have combined Chang-Hasnain with Descos. Chang-Hasnain and Wawro teach using the Bragg mirrors for vertical emission however they do not teach away from using the Bragg mirrors for horizontal emission. In addition Chang-Hasnain teaches every physical feature regarding the Bragg mirror. Since Chang-Hasnain has every physical feature as Claim 1 Chang-Hasnain will inherently have all the same properties as the Claim invention found in Claim 1 giving it the ability to propagate light horizontally. For the given reasons Examiner does not find the arguments persuasive. The Rejection of Claim 1 is maintained.
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.
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.
Claim 1, 2, 4-5, 8, 10-13, 15-17 are rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Chang-Hasnain US 20070115553 in view of A. Descos et al.: “Heterogeneously Integrated III-V/Si Distributed Bragg Reflector Laser with Adiabatic Coupling”, 39th European Conference and Exhibition on Optical Communication (ECOC 2013), 1 January 2013 (2013-01-01), pages 687-689, XP055197576 (From IDS) and Wawro et al. US 7167615.
Regarding Claim 1, Chang-Hasnain teaches A Bragg mirror (Fig. 1) comprising a first ribbon part (Fig. 1, 12) based on a first material having a first refractive index n1 (Paragraph 0041 “a substrate layer 12 composed of silicon,” Paragraph 0046 “Si substrate (n=3.48)”), said first ribbon extending mainly in a first direction x (See annotated Fig. 1 below); and
corrugations (Fig. 1, 16) at least at one face of said first ribbon part (Fig. 1 shows the corrugations on the top face of the first ribbon part), said corrugations extending mainly in a second direction y normal to the first direction x (Fig. 1 shows the corrugations extend in the second direction y which is normal to the x direction) and having a height h3 in a third direction z normal to the first and second directions (See annotated Fig. 1 below),
wherein the corrugations are separated from said at least one face of the first ribbon part by a separation layer (Fig. 1, 14) based on a second material (Paragraph 0041 “a layer of low index material 14 composed of SiO2 over the substrate layer 12,”) having a thickness e2 taken in the third direction (Fig. 1 shows that the separation layer has a thickness in the z direction) and having a second refractive index n2 (Paragraph 0046 “low index material under the grating nL=1.47 (SiO2)”),
wherein corrugations are based on a third material (Paragraph 0041 “a plurality of spaced apart sections of high index material 16 made of poly-silicon for purposes of illustration”) having a third refractive index n3 (Paragraph 0046 “high index material n.sub.n=3.48 (Poly-Si)”), such that n2 < n3 and n2 < n1 (Paragraph 0046 shows that n3 is larger than n2 1.47<3.48 and n1 is larger than n2 1.47<3.48).
wherein the corrugations are disposed on a plane xy defined by the first and second directions x,y, (Annotated Fig. 1 below shows that the corrugations are disposed on the xy plane) and
wherein the corrugations are separated from each other by a period Λ along the first direction x (Fig. 1 shows the corrugations are separated from each other by a period Λ in the x direction)
Chang-Hasnain does not teach the first ribbon intends to guide a propagation of a light radiation of wavelength λ in said first direction x and wherein the propagation of light radiation in said first direction x is perpendicular to the height h3 of the corrugations in the third direction z and the third and second indices of refraction are such that n3 - n2 ≤ 0.5.
However,
Descos teaches the first ribbon intends to guide a propagation of a light radiation of wavelength λ in said first direction x (Fig. 1a) shows the first ribbon being the Si waveguide propagating the light in the x direction which is the left and right direction of the side view of 1a).) and wherein the propagation of light radiation in said first direction x is perpendicular to the height h3 of the corrugations in the third direction z. (Fig. 1b shows the height of the corrugations are in the z direction which is perpendicular to the propagation of light which is in the x direction)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intended guide direction of the first ribbon as taught by Chang-Hasnain by having it guide the light in the x direction as disclosed by Descos. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to take advantage of both the material properties III-V for efficient light emission and silicon for its low-lows beyond 1.1µm and high-index contrast with its native oxide. (Descos Introduction)
Chang-Hansain in combination with Descos does not teach the third and second indices of refraction are such that n3 - n2 ≤ 0.5.
Wawro teaches the corrugations are made from Silicon Nitride (Col. 23 Lines 36-37 “This sensor was fabricated using Si3N4 as the waveguide grating” Silicon Nitride is the same material used the third material in the application and SiO2 is the same material used in the second material in the application. As such the difference in index of refraction will be in the same range as claimed)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the third material as taught by Chang-Hasnain by having it be made from Silicon Nitride as disclosed by Wawro. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to change the wavelength reflected by the device. (Wawro Fig. 21)
PNG
media_image1.png
578
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Chang-Hasnain in combination with Wawro teaches the corrugations are separated from each other so that the separation layer is exposed between said corrugations. (Chang-Hasnain Fig. 1 shows the corrugations are separated from each other so the separation layer is exposed between the corrugations)
Regarding Claim 4, Chang-Hasnain in combination with Descos and Wawro does not teach the height h3 of the corrugations is greater than or equal to 5 nm and/or less than or equal to 30nm.
However,
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the height of the corrugations as taught by Chang-Hasnain because changing the corrugations height would optimize which wavelengths can be reflected. (Paragraph 0044 “It has been shown that the reflectivity range of the mirror is dependent on the selected grating period 18 (Λ), the duty cycle and the grating thickness 22 (tg). Accordingly, the sub-wavelength grating 10 (SWG) is scalable for different wavelengths by simply changing its geometrical dimensions. This facilitates the easy fabrication of the reflectors with other optoelectric devices over a wide range of wavelengths, from visible to far infrared, and can be used to create low voltage and widely tunable optical filters.”) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding Claim 5, Chang-Hasnain in combination with Descos and Wawro does not teach the thickness e2 of the separation layer is greater than or equal to 10 nm and/or less than or equal to 50 nm.
However,
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the height of the thickness of the separation layer as taught by Chang-Hasnain because changing the thickness of the separation layer would optimize which wavelengths can be reflected. (Paragraph 0044 “It has been shown that the reflectivity range of the mirror is dependent on the selected grating period 18 (Λ), the duty cycle and the grating thickness 22 (tg). Accordingly, the sub-wavelength grating 10 (SWG) is scalable for different wavelengths by simply changing its geometrical dimensions. This facilitates the easy fabrication of the reflectors with other optoelectric devices over a wide range of wavelengths, from visible to far infrared, and can be used to create low voltage and widely tunable optical filters.”) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding Claim 8, Chang-Hasnain in combination with Descos and Wawro teaches the first refractive index n1 is greater than or equal to 3 (Chang-Hasnain Paragraph 0046 “Si substrate (n=3.48)”), the second refractive index n2 is less than or equal to 2 (Paragraph 0046 “low index material under the grating nL=1.47 (SiO2)”), and the third refractive index n3 is greater than or equal to 1.5 (Wawro Col. 23 Lines 36-37 “This sensor was fabricated using Si3N4 as the waveguide grating” The index of refraction of Si3N4 is 1.85 Wawro Col 8. Lines 7-8 See Claim 1 for rationale)
Regarding Claim 10, Chang-Hasnain in combination with Descos and Wawro teaches the first material is silicon (Chang-Hasnain Paragraph 0041 “a substrate layer 12 composed of silicon,”), the second material is a silicon oxide (Chang-Hasnain Paragraph 0041 “a layer of low index material 14 composed of SiO2 over the substrate layer 12,”), and the corrugations are made from Silicon Nitride (Wawro Col. 23 Lines 36-37 “his sensor was fabricated using Si3N4 as the waveguide grating” See Claim 1 for rationale)
Regarding Claim 11, Chang-Hasnain in combination with Wawro does not teach the first ribbon part is configured to cooperate with a ribbon forming a single-mode guide.
However,
Descos teaches the first ribbon part is configured to cooperate with a ribbon forming a single-mode guide. (Figs. 1(a & c) shows a first ribbon part on the right coupled to a ribbon to from a single mode guide)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Chang-Hasnain by adding the ribbon which cooperates with the first ribbon part as disclosed by . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to couple the light to a gain region. (Descos Fig. 1(a) shows the DBR mirror coupled to a gain region to produce laser light)
Regarding Claim 12, Chang-Hasnain in combination with Wawro does not teach the first part of the ribbon rests on an underlying layer having a refractive index less than the first refractive index n1, so that the light radiation is confined in the third direction z.
However
Descos teaches the first part of the ribbon rests on an underlying layer having a refractive index less than the first refractive index n1, so that the light radiation is confined in the third direction z. (Fig. 1 (b) shows the index of refraction profile which shows the ribbon resting on a lower index of refraction material which confines the light radiation to the z direction)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first part of the ribbon as taught by Chang-Hasnain by adding the lower index of refraction material under the first part of the ribbon as disclosed by Descos. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to guide the light. (Descos Page 1 Column 2 Paragraph 1 “using an approach where the mode is mainly guided by the Si waveguide”)
Regarding Claim 13, Chang-Hasnain teaches A method for manufacturing a Bragg mirror (Paragraph 0058 “In order to demonstrate the functionality of the design, several single wavelength grating structures according to FIG. 1 were fabricated.”) comprising:
providing a ribbon based on a first material having a first refractive index n1 (Paragraph 0058 “Fabrication was conducted on a silicon wafer” Paragraph 0046 “Si substrate (n=3.48)), said ribbon extending mainly in a first direction x (See annotated Fig. 1 below) and having a face extending in a main extension plane xy formed by the first direction x and a second direction y normal to the first direction x (The face is the xy plane of the ribbon),
depositing at least on a first part of said face of the ribbon a separation layer (Paragraph 0058 “The 1D grating structures were formed with stripes of high index material disposed on two low index layers. The high index material was poly-Si (nh)=3.48, and the low index material within the grating was air (n=1). The low index material under the grating was SiO.sub.2 with (nl)=1.47 and a thickness (tL)=0.58 µm and (tg)=0.4 µm”) based on a second material having a second refractive index n2 (Paragraph 0046 “low index material under the grating nL=1.47 (SiO2)”) such that n2 < n1 (1.47<3.48), said separation layer having a thickness e2 taken in the third direction (Fig. 1 shows that the separation layer has a thickness in the z direction) z normal to the first and second directions xy (z direction is normal to the x and y directions), depositing, on the separation layer (Paragraph 0069 “Polysilicon was then deposited on top of the oxide layer at 600 degree C.”), a disturbance layer based on a third material having a third refractive index n3 (Paragraph 0046 “high index material n.sub.n=3.48 (Poly-Si)”), such that n2 < n3 (1.47 < 3.48), said disturbance layer having a thickness e3 taken in the third direction Z (Fig. 1 shows the disturbance layer has a thickness e3 in the z direction) and,
etching the disturbance layer so as to form corrugations extending mainly in the second direction y, and having a height h3 ≤ e3 in the third direction z. (Paragraph 0069 “E-beam lithography on PMMA was used for lift off metal (200 .ANG. Cr/80 .ANG. Au) that served as a mask to pattern the top PECVD oxide, which was then etched by RIE. The metal mask was removed and lastly the polysilicon was etched by RIE to form the rectangular grating profile.” The height h3 is the height of the corrugations in fig. 1)
wherein the corrugations are disposed on a plane xy defined by the first and second directions x,y, (Annotated Fig. 1 below shows that the corrugations are disposed on the xy plane) and
wherein the corrugations are separated from each other by a period Λ along the first direction x (Fig. 1 shows the corrugations are separated from each other by a period Λ in the x direction).
Descos teaches wherein the propagation of light radiation in said first direction x is perpendicular to the height h3 of the corrugations in the third direction z. (Fig. 1b shows the height of the corrugations are in the z direction which is perpendicular to the propagation of light which is in the x direction)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intended guide direction of the first ribbon as taught by Chang-Hasnain by having it guide the light in the x direction as disclosed by Descos. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to take advantage of both the material properties III-V for efficient light emission and silicon for its low-lows beyond 1.1µm and high-index contrast with its native oxide. (Descos Introduction)
Chang-Hansain in combination with Descos does not teach the third and second indices of refraction are such that n3 - n2 ≤ 0.5.
PNG
media_image1.png
578
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Chang-Hasnain in combination with Descos and Wawro teaches the etching is stopped at an interface between the separation layer and the disturbance layer, so that the height h3 of the corrugations is equal to the thickness e3 of the disturbance layer. (Chang-Hasnain Fig. 1 shows the etching stopped at the interference between the separation and the disturbance layer so the height of the corrugations is equal to the thickness of the disturbance layer )
Regarding Claim 16, Chang-Hasnain in combination with Descos Wawro does not teach the height h3 of the corrugations is greater than or equal to 5 nm and/or less than or equal to 30 nm and the thickness e2 of the separation layer is greater than or equal to 20 nm and/or less than or equal to 50 nm.
However,
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the height of the thickness of the separation layer and the height of the corrugations as taught by Chang-Hasnain because changing both the thickness of the separation layer and changing the thickness of the corrugations would optimize which wavelengths can be reflected. (Paragraph 0044 “It has been shown that the reflectivity range of the mirror is dependent on the selected grating period 18 (Λ), the duty cycle and the grating thickness 22 (tg). Accordingly, the sub-wavelength grating 10 (SWG) is scalable for different wavelengths by simply changing its geometrical dimensions. This facilitates the easy fabrication of the reflectors with other optoelectric devices over a wide range of wavelengths, from visible to far infrared, and can be used to create low voltage and widely tunable optical filters.”) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding Claim 17, Chang-Hasnain in combination with Descos and Wawro does not teach the height h3 of the corrugations is greater than or equal to 20 nm and less than or equal to 25nm.
However,
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the height of the corrugations as taught by Chang-Hasnain because changing the corrugations height would optimize which wavelengths can be reflected. (Paragraph 0044 “It has been shown that the reflectivity range of the mirror is dependent on the selected grating period 18 (Λ), the duty cycle and the grating thickness 22 (tg). Accordingly, the sub-wavelength grating 10 (SWG) is scalable for different wavelengths by simply changing its geometrical dimensions. This facilitates the easy fabrication of the reflectors with other optoelectric devices over a wide range of wavelengths, from visible to far infrared, and can be used to create low voltage and widely tunable optical filters.”) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claims 3, 14 are rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Chang-Hasnain, Descos and Wawro in view of Ferrotti et al. US 20170141541.
Regarding Claim 3, Chang-Hasnain in combination with Descos and Wawro does not teach the corrugations are encapsulated in an encapsulation layer based on the second material.
However,
Ferrotti teaches the corrugations are encapsulated in an encapsulation layer based on the second material. (Paragraph 0127 “As may be seen in FIGS. 11A and 11B, an insulating layer 108, for example of SiO.sub.2, is deposited to encapsulate the rib waveguide 11”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Bragg Mirror as taught by Chang-Hasnain by adding the encapsulation layer as disclosed by Ferrotti. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to protect the Bragg mirror.
Regarding Claim 14, Chang-Hasnain in combination with Descos and Wawro does not teach encapsulating the corrugations by an encapsulation layer based on the second material.
However,
Ferrotti teaches encapsulating the corrugations by an encapsulation layer based on the second material. (Paragraph 0127 “As may be seen in FIGS. 11A and 11B, an insulating layer 108, for example of SiO.sub.2, is deposited to encapsulate the rib waveguide 11”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Bragg Mirror as taught by Chang-Hasnain by encapsulating the corrugations layer as disclosed by Ferrotti. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to protect the Bragg mirror.
Claim 6 is rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Chang-Hasnain, Descos and Wawro in view of Han Yun et al.: “Broadband 2 x 2 adiabatic 3 dB coupler using silicon-on-insulator sub-wavelength grating waveguides”, Optics Letters, Vol. 41, No 13, 2016, Pages 3041-3044, XP055696463.
Regarding Claim 6, Chang-Hasnain in combination of Descos and Wawro does not teach the corrugations have an adiabatic pattern projecting in a main extension plane xy formed by the first and second directions.
However,
Yun teaches the corrugations have an adiabatic pattern projecting in a main extension plane xy formed by the first and second directions. (Abstract “We report a compact, broadband, 2 x 2 adiabatic 3 dB coupler using sub-wavelength gratings (SWGs) for silicon-on-insulator waveguides.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the corrugations as taught by Chang-Hasnain by having a corrugations having a adiabatic pattern as disclosed by Yun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to modify the wavelength operating ranges. (Yun Page 3041 Col. 1 Paragraph 1)
Claim 7 is rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Chang-Hasnain, Descos and Wawro in view of Cox et al. US 6836501
Regarding Claim 7, Chang-Hasnain in combination with Descos and Wawro does not teaches the height h3 and the thickness e2 are configured so that the mirror has a spectral bandwidth δDDBR less than or equal to 0.5 nm.
However,
Cox teaches the height h3 and the thickness e2 are configured so that the mirror has a spectral bandwidth δDDBR less than or equal to 0.5 nm. (Fig. 8 Col. 8 Lines 25-26 “As can be seen, the reflectance curve still has a narrow bandwidth (0.0097 nm) “)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Chang-Hasnain by having the bandwidth is less than or equal to 0.5 nm as disclosed by Cox. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce degradation to the observed reflectance. (Col. 8 Lines 27-30 “Therefore, and unlike FIG. 5, there is little or no degradation in the observed reflectance of the resonant reflector, even when placed adjacent a conductive layer.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cunningham US 7142296 Fig. 16 teaches many features found in the Claimed Invention.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN SUTTON KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/STEPHEN SUTTON KOTTER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828