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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 2/3/26 is acknowledged.
Specification
3. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1, 7, 8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holt et al. (US-20220196909-A1).
With respect to claim 1, Holt et al. (figure 2A) disclose a through silicon waveguide, comprising a substrate (201) (substrate 201 can have a bottom surface 281 and a top surface 282 opposite the bottom surface), wherein the substrate comprises silicon (a silicon (Si) substrate) ([0021]); and a waveguide (250) through the substrate (201) ([0020]), wherein the waveguide comprises a waveguide structure (252, figure 2A); and a cladding (251) around the waveguide structure (252).
PNG
media_image1.png
394
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, Holt et al. (figure 2A) disclose the through silicon waveguide, wherein the waveguide structure (252) is rectangular (figure 2).
With respect to claim 8, Holt et al. (figure 2A) disclose the through silicon waveguide, wherein the waveguide structure (252) is cross-shaped (figure 2).
With respect to claim 11, Holt et al. (figure 2A) disclose the through silicon waveguide, wherein the waveguide structure comprises silicon and nitrogen ([0024]).
With respect to claim 12, Holt et al. (figure 2A) disclose the through silicon waveguide, wherein the waveguide structure (252) is a shell (figure 2).
With respect to claim 13, Holt et al. (figure 2A) disclose the through silicon waveguide, wherein a height of the waveguide structure is approximately 100µm or greater ([0022]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) 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.
10. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Holt et al. (as cited above).
With respect to claim 9, Holt et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention except the waveguide structure is T- shaped.
However, the waveguide structure being T- shaped is considered to be obvious to provide higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Holt et al. with the above features for the purpose of obtaining higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. It is noted that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the figure of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to claim 10, Holt et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention except metal vias adjacent to the waveguide structure.
However, the metal vias adjacent to the waveguide structure is considered to be obvious to provide high performance of optical signal transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Holt et al. to include the above feature for the purpose of providing high performance of optical signal transmission. It is also noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
11. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Holt et al. (as cited above) in view of Sparacin et al. (US-7831123-B2).
With respect to claim 2, Holt et al. (figure 2A) substantially disclose all the limitations of claimed invention except the waveguide structure comprises silicon.
However, Sparacin et al. teach an optical device including the waveguide structure comprises silicon (column 6, line 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Holt et al. to include the waveguide structure comprising silicon (accordance with the teaching of Sparacin) for the purpose of reducing the transmission losses of the waveguide (column 6, lines 9-10).
With respect to claim 3, Holt et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention except the cladding comprises oxygen.
However, the cladding comprising oxygen is considered to be obvious to provide high performance of optical signal transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Holt et al. to include the above feature for the purpose of providing high performance of optical signal transmission. It is also noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 4, Holt et al. (figure 2A) substantially disclose all the limitations of claimed invention except the cladding comprises a liner and a fill material.
However, Sparacin et al. teach an optical device including the cladding (15) comprises a liner and a fill material (figure 1A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Holt et al. to include the above feature (accordance with the teaching of Sparacin) for the purpose of reducing the transmission losses of the waveguide (column 6, lines 9-10).
12. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Holt et al. (as cited above) in view of Patterson et al. (US-2019/0235163-A1).
With respect to claim 5, Holt et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of claimed invention except the substrate comprises a plurality of silicon layers bonded together.
However, Patterson et al. teach a device including the substrate comprises a plurality of silicon layers bonded together (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Holt et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Patterson) for the purpose of providing efficient, low-loss coupling between the optical waveguide and an optical fiber ([0005]).
With respect to claim 6, Holt et al. disclose the silicon waveguide, wherein the plurality of silicon layers have a thickness between approximately 10µm and approximately 50µm ([0021]).
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bauters et al. (US-9285540-B2) disclose an integrated dielectric waveguide. Shi et al. (US-20160357036-A1) disclose a ring optical modulator.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Doan whose telephone number is (571) 272-2346. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 7:00am to 3:30pm.
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 Hollweg can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874