The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 1/29/26 are acknowledged. Claims 1, 9, and 17 – 19 have been amended. Claims 1 – 12 and 14 – 21 are pending.
Response to Amendments / Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the amended claims versus the previously-raised rejections under 35 USC 103(a) have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. The new limitations in independent claims 1, 9, and 17 define that the first material has one or more of a non-uniform or non-crystalline structure. While Ono cites crystalline active materials (lithium niobate; 12:33 – 45) and Godet mentions crystalline or non-crystalline/amorphous silicon, the Ono – Godet combination does not expressly list non-crystalline/amorphous active materials. Accordingly, the Examiner additionally applies a reference by Lin (US 2020/0103344 A1) that has been yielded by an updated prior-art search and discloses an optical waveguide comprising a non-crystalline/amorphous active material, in particular, a chalcogenide glass such as As2S3, the latter being one of the suitable active materials listed by Ono and by the instant specification (para. 0022).
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected as provided below, and so are the dependent claims for which Applicant does not provide any additional substantial arguments and which therefore stand or fall together with the respective independent claims.
As an aside and relevant comment, it is also noted that the 1/29/26 form of claims is different from that submitted by Applicant for the 1/26/26 interview and was not discussed during it.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 – 12 and 14 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (US 6,411,765 B1) in view of Godet et al (US 2019/0318957 A1), and further in view of Lin (US 2020/0103344 A1), as evidenced by “Strip/slot hybrid arsenic tri-sulfide waveguide with ultra-flat and low dispersion profile over an ultra-wide bandwidth” by Jafari et al, OPTICS LETTERS, vol. 38, No. 16, pp. 3082 – 3085, 2013 (hereinafter Jafari) and by “The Nonlinear Optical Properties of AlGaAs at the Half Band Gap” by Aitchison et al, IEEE JOURNAL OF QUANTUM ELECTRONICS, vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 341 – 348, 1997 (hereinafter Aitchison).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Ono discloses (Fig. 6; 7:59 – 8:51) a photonic waveguide structure, comprising (see annotated last drawing in Fig. 6 below):
at least four photonic waveguide layers disposed in a stack configuration, wherein:
a first (e.g., the bottommost) photonic waveguide layer 162, of the at least four photonic waveguide layers 162,170,178,186, includes a first cladding layer 154 and a first waveguide core structure 158,
wherein the first cladding layer 154 is configured to confine light within the first waveguide core structure 158 (to enable light guiding in/along the first waveguide core structure 158 due to a lower reflective index in the first cladding layer 154, “a specific difference in the specific refraction factor is created between the first clad layer 154 and the first core layer 156” at 8:81 – 3; “the core portions constituting the optical coupler in the structure fulfill a function of guiding light energy, a function of relay coupling two other core portions or a function achieving a combination of these functions” at 3:16 – 20; “A optical waveguide element, having n substantively planar light-wave circuit layers, each constituted of a core portion for receiving and guiding a light signal and a clad layer covering said core portion” in claim 1),
wherein the first waveguide core structure 158 comprises a first material (12:36 – 45);
a second photonic waveguide layer 170, of the at least four photonic waveguide layers 162,170,178,186, includes a second cladding layer 160 and a second waveguide core structure 166 associated with a propagation loss parameter that satisfies a propagation loss parameter threshold,
wherein the second cladding layer 160 is configured to confine light within the second waveguide core structure 166 (by the same mechanism/principle as that for the first waveguide core structure 158),
wherein the second cladding layer 160 is between the first waveguide core structure 158 and the second waveguide core structure 166 (as seen in Fig. 6), and
wherein the second waveguide core 166 structure comprises a second material (12:36 – 45); and
a third photonic waveguide layer 178, of the at least four photonic waveguide layers 162,170,178,186, includes a third cladding layer 168 and a third waveguide core structure 174,
wherein the third cladding layer 168 is configured to confine light within the third waveguide core structure 174 (by the same mechanism/principle as that for the other waveguide core structures and cladding layers, as detailed above),
wherein the third cladding layer 168 is between the second waveguide core structure 166 and the third waveguide core structure 174 (as seen in Fig. 6), and
wherein the third waveguide core structure 174 comprises a third material (12:36 – 45).
PNG
media_image1.png
653
1649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated bottommost drawing in Fig. 6 of Ono.
In one of the disclosed embodiments, Ono uses, by way of example but not limitation, silica (SiO2) based compositions for the core structures and cladding layers (7:63 – 65), but also considers a wide variety of other suitable/workable materials for other embodiments (“While optical waveguide elements with their clad layers and their core portions constituted of SiO2 are used as examples in the explanation of embodiments, the present invention is not limited to these examples. The present invention may be adopted in a optical waveguide element with at least either clad layers or core portions thereof constituted of any of various other source materials. For instance, the clad layers or the core portions may be constituted of an organic material such as an epoxy or a polyurethane, a chalcogenide material such as arsenic sulfide, an electro-optical crystalline material such as lithium niobate or lithium tantalate, a magnetic material such as yttrium iron garnet, a metal oxide such as zinc oxide or gallium aluminum arsenide” at 12:33 – 45). The listed materials include both passive materials (e.g., SiO2) and active materials. Specifically, such active materials as arsenic sulfide (As2S3), gallium aluminum arsenide (AlGaAs), and lithium niobate (LiNbO3) all have non-zero and relatively large Kerr coefficients n2 of 83.3 x 10-20 m2/W, 3 x 10-18 m2/W, and 1.5 x 10-17 m2/W, respectively (at a wavelength of 1,550 nm). The values of the Kerr coefficients for As2S3 and AlGaAs are evidenced by Jafari (4th complete para. on p. 3083) and Aitchison (Fig. 5), respectively, and are greater than a Kerr coefficient threshold of 1 x 10-18 m2/W which is recited by claim 2. Thus, Ono generally renders obvious embodiments wherein some or all of the waveguide core structures are formed by active materials (e.g., As2S3, AlGaAs, and LiNbO3). In particular, Ono renders obvious an embodiment wherein the first waveguide core structure 158 is formed of such active material as As2S3 and is a first active structure associated with a Kerr coefficient that satisfies the Kerr coefficient threshold (of 1 x 10-18 m2/W). The second waveguide core structure 166 can be formed of a second active material, such as LiNbO3 (which has low optical loss and commonly used for making optical waveguides) and associated with a propagation loss parameter that satisfies a propagation loss parameter threshold. The second active structure comprises the second material (LiNbO3) that is different from the first material (As2S3). Similarly, the third waveguide core structure 174 can comprise a third active material (e.g., AlGaAs), the third material (AlGaAs) being different from the first material (As2S3) and the second material (LiNbO3). Annotated Fig. 6 above illustrates such selection of active materials.
As detailed above, Ono generally renders obvious that waveguide cores in different photonic layers can be formed of different materials, but does not expressly state so. However, Godet discloses (Figs. 2 and 3; 0007 and 0043 – 0054) a photonic structure comprising at least four photonic layers disposed in a stack configuration (“In other examples, four or more optical element layers can be stacked to form an optical device” at para. 0051), wherein the photonic structure is fabricated, layer by layer, similarly to the photonic structure in Ono, and wherein each layer comprises patterned regions of higher refractive index (e.g., 206, 212, and 216 in Fig. 3) that are covered by cladding layers 208,214,218 of lower refractive index (para. 0036 and 0047). Godet expressly states that the high-index regions in different photonic layers can be formed of different materials (“In other examples, operations 104-108 can repeated for a plurality of iterations (cycles) that may employ the same or differing materials, heights, and patterns. Depending on the example, stacked optical element layers can be formed from the same or different materials. This cycle (of operations 104-108) can be repeated from 2-100 times to form a plurality of stacked optical element layers” at para. 0038). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first active structure, the second active structure, and the third active structure can be formed of 3 active materials that are different from one another (e.g., As2S3, AlGaAs, and LiNbO3, which are all cited by Ono as suitable active materials), as generally rendered obvious by the teachings of Ono and expressly taught by Godet.
Further, the Ono – Godet combination considers that the second material (e.g., LiNbO3) is associated with a propagation loss parameter (a non-zero loss coefficient inherent to any dielectric non-amplifying material) that satisfies a propagation loss parameter threshold (e.g., zero), wherein the second material comprises one or more other linear optical characteristics (e.g., a (linear) refractive index that is inherent to any solid material).
Finally, Ono cites crystalline active materials (lithium niobate; 12:33 – 45) and Godet mentions crystalline or non-crystalline/amorphous silicon, but the Ono – Godet combination does not state that an active material, such as As2S3 (listed by Ono), can have a non-crystalline/amorphous structure. However, Lin discloses (Figs. 1A and 1B; Abstract; para. 0021 and 0022) an optical waveguide 102 comprising a non-crystalline/amorphous active material, in particular, a chalcogenide glass (comprising sulfur, selenium or tellurium (para. 0021)), such as As2S3 which is one of the suitable active materials listed by Ono. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first material of the Ono – Godet combination, such as As2S3, can have a non-crystalline/amorphous active structure as a common form of As2Ge3 (chalcogenide glass). As2S3 is listed by both Ono (and by the instant specification at para. 0022) as a suitable active material and As2S3 has one or more other nonlinear optical characteristics, such as the nonlinear coefficient g (units 1/(W*m)), as evidenced by Jafari (Fig. 4; Eq. 3; para. bridging columns on p. 3083 and following para.).
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Ono – Godet – Lin combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
Regarding claims 9, 10, 17, and 18, the teachings of Ono, Godet, and Lin combine (see the arguments and motivation for combining, as provided above for claim 1) to teach expressly or render obvious all of the recited limitations defining an optical device that comprises the contemplated stacked photonic waveguide structure, as detailed above for claims 1, 2, and 7.
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 19, the Examiner took official notice in the Office Action of 11/19/25 that it was well known in the art that optical waveguides in LiNbO3 (the second active material) could have low loss, down to 0.1 dB/cm. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the propagation loss parameter threshold can be set at less than or equal to 0.5 dB/cm in optical waveguides from of LiNbO3.
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 20, the Ono – Godet – Lin combination considers that the first active structure and the second active structure can each configured to transmit light with wavelengths from the visible to the near-infrared within which As2S3, AlGaAs, LiNbO3, and SiO2 are transparent and have low optical loss (“the light-wavelength is approximately 1.31 micrometer” at 10:33 – 34 of Ono; para. 0031 of Godet). Hence, the Ono – Godet – Lin combination considers a wavelength range that at least overlaps with the recite range and, hence, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the Ono – Godet – Lin combination considers that respective thicknesses of the first active structure and the second active structure can be greater than or equal to 500 nm (8 mm x 8 mm at 10:32 – 35 of Ono; Jafari provides evidence that waveguides in As2S3 can have thicknesses over 500 nm (para. bridging columns on p. 3083). It is also noted that it would be well within ordinary skill in the art of optical waveguides (which is noted as being high) to determine workable/optimum waveguide cross-sections for an intended wavelength of operation.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the Ono – Godet – Lin combination considers that the first photonic waveguide layer and the second photonic waveguide layer can be formed using one or more sputtering processes (4:36 – 39 of Ono).
Regarding claim 7, the Ono – Godet – Lin combination considers that the at least four photonic waveguide layers are disposed in the stack configuration over a substrate (identified as 152 in Fig. 5 of Ono). The Ono – Godet combination does not limit the order of the stacked layers so that the first photonic waveguide layer can be disposed over or under the second photonic waveguide layer in the stack configuration as a matter of renumbering/renaming of the layers.
As an aside, it is also noted that the stacked layer structure in Fig. 6 of Ono has essential structural features substantially similar/identical to those in Fig. 1 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 8, the Ono – Godet – Lin combination considers that the third photonic waveguide layer is disposed over the second photonic waveguide layer in the stack configuration (see annotated Fig. 6 of Ono provided above for claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, the Ono – Godet – Lin combination renders obvious a wide variety of suitable/workable active (nonlinear) materials and their combinations. In the latter case, there can be a fourth material included in the first active structure and the second active structure. For example, AlGaAs and InGaAsP both include Ga and As. 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. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 21, the Ono – Godet – Lin combination considers that the contemplated photonic waveguide structure can further comprise a fourth photonic waveguide layer 186, of the at least four photonic waveguide layers 162,170,178,186 (see annotated Fig. 6 of Ono provide above for claim 1), includes a fourth cladding layer and a fourth active structure,
wherein the fourth cladding layer is configured to confine light within the fourth active structure (just as the other cladding layers),
wherein the fourth cladding layer is between the third active structure and the fourth active structure, and
wherein the fourth active structure comprises a fourth material (e.g., lithium tantalate; at 12:33 – 45 of Ono) which may be different from the first material (As2S3), the second material (LiNbO3), and the third material (AlGaAs).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0178983 A1 (Fig. 5; para. 0012, 0033, 0104) discloses a waveguide core 55 comprising multiple layers of different active materials, such as crystalline or amorphous As2S3.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/ROBERT TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights