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 .
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by WIPO Application Publication to Avrahami WO2006/028477A1 in view of the US Patent Wessels 6,605,151US.
In terms of Claim 1, Avrahami teaches a method comprising: depositing a magnesium oxide (MgO) seed layer (Figure 4c: layer 180 functions as a seed layer to grow layer 140 above of it; wherein 180 is made of MgO materials [Page 10, lines 5-10]) directly on an amorphous insulating cladding layer (Figure 4c: the insulator layer 120 is amorphous material (Page 12, lines 5-10). Insulator layer maybe made of silicon dioxide (Page 6, lines 20 of which is the same material used as the upper cladding layer 170 [Page 9, line 20]. Hence the examiner considers layer 120 capable of function as a cladding layer) by a physical vapor deposition (PVD or physical vapor deposition [Page 5, lines 1-10]) process; and depositing a crystalline electro-optic layer (Figure 6c: 140 and Page 7, lines 20-25) directly on the MgO seed layer (Figure 6c: 140 and 180).
Avrahami does not teach wherein the MgO layer has a crystalline structure.
Wessels does teach wherein the an MgO layer used in electro-optic modulator is has a crystalline structure (Column 3, lines 25-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Avrahami to have crystalline MgO layer in order to provide thermos stability in semiconductor devices such as optical modulators (Column 3, lines 25-40).
As for claim 2, Avrahami / Wessels teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Avrahami teaches the crystalline electro-optic layer (Figure 6c: 140 is crystalline [Page 7, lines 20-3]) is between 50 nanometers nm and 500 nm in thickness (Page 7, lines 10-15), the crystalline MgO (Figure 6c: 180 is MgO and MgO is a crystalline material) seed layer is between 1 nm and 20 nm in thickness (Page 9, lines 31-34), and the amorphous insulating cladding layer (120/130) is between 1um and 10 um (Figure 6c: 120 and 130 is 3.05 Um in thickness).
As for claim 3, Avrahami / Wessels teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Avrahami teaches the amorphous insulating cladding layer (layer 120 is amorphous and insulating [see claim 22]) comprises silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride or tantalum oxide (Page 6, lines 10-20).
As for claim 4, Avrahami / Wessels teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Avrahami teaches the crystalline electro-optic layer comprises a ferroelectric waveguide layer (Figure 6c: 140 is the electro-optic layer; wherein the electro-optic layer is made of BaTiO3 which is well known ferroelectric material). The examiner would also like to note that BaTiO3 is also the same material used as the electro-optic material (applicant’s specification [0039-0040]).
As for claim 6, Avrahami / Wessels teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Avrahami teaches the crystalline electro-optic layer comprises one of: strontium titanate (STO); barium strontium titanate (BST);hafnium oxide; lithium niobate (LiNbo3); zirconium oxide; titanium oxide; graphene oxide; tantalum oxide; lead zirconium titanate (PZT or PbZrTiO3); lead lanthanum zirconium titanate (PLZT or PbLaZrTiO3 );strontium barium niobate (SBN); or aluminum oxide (Page 7, lines 5-15 wherein the bolded materials and formula are disclosed by Avrahami of EO layer 140).
As for claim 8, Avrahami / Wessels teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Avrahami teaches comprising: etching the electro-optic layer (Figure 6c: 140) to produce a ridge structure (Figure 6c: 150); and depositing an additional insulating cladding layer on the etched electro- optic layer (Figure 1H: 170).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avrahami WO2006/028477A1 / Wessels 6,605,151US as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication to Weiss 2004/0232406US.
In regards to Claim 5, Avrahami teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the electro-optic layer comprises of BTO (Page 7, lines 5-15 which teaches layer 140 maybe BaTiO3) wherein the layer 140 contains a portion 150 that may be formed through electron beam deposition (Page 8, lines 15-25).
Avrahami does not teach wherein the MgO layer is formed using electron beam or ion beam deposition.
Weiss does teach a method of making optical components wherein layers of MgO can be made through the use of electron beam deposition ([0082]). 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 method of deposition of the MgO layer to use electron beam deposition because electron beam deposition is a well-known process that have high precision accuracy for manufacturing of oxides layers.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avrahami WO2006/028477A1 / Wessels 6,605,151US as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent to Teng 10,197,731US.
In regards to claims 7 and 9, Avrahami teaches the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 11, wherein the device has a top and bottom cladding layers (120 and 170).
Avrahami / Wessels do not teach wherein the method further comprising forming a first waveguide embedded within the cladding layer; and a second waveguide embedded within the additional cladding layer.
Teng does teach wherein a method further comprising forming a first waveguide embedded within the cladding layer; and a second waveguide embedded within the additional cladding layer (See Figure 2a and 2b wherein a plurality of cores are embedded into vertical layers to allow the device to have multiple transmission channels (Column 5, lines 30-67). 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 teachings of Avrahami to include core layers within the cladding layers of 120 and 170. This allows the device to have multiple waveguide channels within one semiconductor package. The device can be used to for inputs and output scaling purposes wherein more input/outputs are required on one package.
Claim 10-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avrahami WO2006/028477A1 / Wessels 6,605,151US as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Japanese Patent to 中村 善貞(JP4958331B2).
In terms of Claims 10-11 and 20, Avrahami teaches a device, comprising a magnesium oxide (MgO) seed layer (Figure 4c: layer 180 functions as a seed layer to grow layer 140 above of it; wherein 180 is made of MgO materials [Page 10, lines 5-10]) located directly on an amorphous insulating cladding layer (Figure 4c: the insulator layer 120 is amorphous material (Page 12, lines 5-10). Insulator layer maybe made of silicon dioxide (Page 6, lines 20 of which is the same material used as the upper cladding layer 170 [Page 9, line 20]. Hence the examiner considers layer 120 capable of function as a cladding layer) by a physical vapor deposition (PVD or physical vapor deposition [Page 5, lines 1-10]) process; and a crystalline electro-optic layer (Figure 6c: 140 of which also performs modulating functions Page 1, lines 1-10) located directly on the MgO seed layer (Figure 6c: 140 and 180) via a second PVD process (the second PVD process is identified by the examiner has a product by process, wherein the process does not impart any additional structure from what is disclosed in the prior art, hence structurally speaking the disclosed structure still reads onto the device as claimed).
Avrahami does not teach wherein the MgO layer has a crystalline structure.
Wessels does teach wherein the an MgO layer used in electro-optic modulator is has a crystalline structure (Column 3, lines 25-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Avrahami to have crystalline MgO layer in order to provide thermos stability in semiconductor devices such as optical modulators (Column 3, lines 25-40) wherein the electrode is in contact with the electro optic layer (Figure 1h: 160a-b and 140, conductive leads must be couple to the electrodes 160a-b in order to supply electrical current or voltage to the device).
Avrahami / Wessels do not teach wherein a doped or vacancy containing strontium titanium oxide (STO) forms the electrodes.
中村 善貞 does teach wherein a doped or vacancy containing strontium titanium oxide (STO – [0014]) forms the electrodes ([0015]) for the purpose increase electrical conductivity in semiconductor devices ([0015]). 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 materials of the electrodes of Avrahami to be made from doped STO in order to increase the electrical conductivity of the semiconductor device ([0015]) which allows the device to be more efficient.
As for Claim 12, Avrahami / Wessels / 中村 善貞 teaches the method of claim 11, wherein Avrahami teaches the crystalline electro-optic layer (Figure 6c: 140 is crystalline [Page 7, lines 20-3]) is between 50 nanometers nm and 500 nm in thickness (Page 7, lines 10-15), the MgO (Figure 6c: 180 is MgO and MgO) seed layer is between 1 nm and 20 nm in thickness (Page 9, lines 31-34), and the amorphous insulating cladding layer (120) is between 1um and 10 um (Figure 6c: 120 and 130 is 3.05 Um in thickness).
As for Claim 13, Avrahami / Wessels / 中村 善貞 teaches the method of claim 11, wherein Avrahami teaches the amorphous insulating cladding layer (layer 120 is amorphous and insulating [see claim 22]) comprises silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride or tantalum oxide (Page 6, lines 10-20).
As for Claim 14, Avrahami / Wessels / 中村 善貞 teaches the method of claim 11, wherein Avrahami teaches the crystalline electro-optic layer comprises a ferroelectric waveguide layer (Figure 6c: 140 is the electro-optic layer; wherein the electro-optic layer is made of BaTiO3 which is well known ferroelectric material). The examiner would also like to note that BaTiO3 is also the same material used as the electro-optic material (applicant’s specification [0039-0040]).
As for Claim 15, Avrahami / Wessels / 中村 善貞 teaches the method of claim 14, wherein Avrahami teaches the crystalline EO layer comprises barium titanate (BTO, Page 7, lines 5-15: which teaches the material BaTiO3 which is BTO).
As for Claim 16, Avrahami / Wessels / 中村 善貞 teaches the method of claim 11, wherein Avrahami teaches the crystalline electro-optic layer comprises one of: strontium titanate (STO); barium strontium titanate (BST);hafnium oxide; lithium niobate (LiNbo3); zirconium oxide; titanium oxide; graphene oxide; tantalum oxide; lead zirconium titanate (PZT or PbZrTiO3); lead lanthanum zirconium titanate (PLZT or PbLaZrTiO3 );strontium barium niobate (SBN); or aluminum oxide (Page 7, lines 5-15 wherein the bolded materials and formula are disclosed by Avrahami of EO layer 140).
As for Claim 18, Avrahami / Wessels / 中村 善貞 teaches the method of claim 11, wherein Avrahami teaches: a ridge structure (Figure 6c: 150) located in the electro optic layer (Figure 1H: 150 and 140); and an additional insulating cladding layer on the etched electro- optic layer (Figure 1H: 170).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avrahami WO2006/028477A1 / Wessels 6,605,151US / 中村 善貞 JP4958331B2 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US Patent to Teng 10,197,731US.
In regards to claims 17, and 19, Avrahami / Wessels / 中村 善貞 teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the device has a top and bottom cladding layers (120 and 170).
Avrahami / Wessels do not teach wherein the method further comprising forming a first waveguide embedded within the cladding layer; and a second waveguide embedded within the additional cladding layer.
Teng does teach wherein a method further comprising forming a first waveguide embedded within the cladding layer; and a second waveguide embedded within the additional cladding layer (See Figure 2a and 2b wherein a plurality of cores are embedded into vertical layers to allow the device to have multiple transmission channels (Column 5, lines 30-67). 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 teachings of Avrahami to include core layers within the cladding layers of 120 and 170. This allows the device to have multiple waveguide channels within one semiconductor package. The device can be used to for inputs and output scaling purposes wherein more input/outputs are required on one package.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 6, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to 1 and 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The non-final rejection of 9/11/2025 has been withdrawn.
The examiners have rejected claim 1 in view of newly cited Figure 4c and the prior art to Wessels 6,605,151US as detailed above.
Claim 11, has also been rejected in view of newly cited prior art to 中村 善貞 (JP4958331B2) as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication to Eltes 20200150467 teaches embedded cores with EO layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5049. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 5:30pm 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 5712722397. 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.
/HOANG Q TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874