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 12/17/25 are acknowledged. Claims 1 – 20 have been amended. Claims 1 – 21 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/15/25 was received and considered by the Examiner. It is noted that the Examiner has reviewed the references as thoroughly as possible; however, a large number of references is cited while the relevance of some, if not most, of the submitted references is not immediately apparent. Therefore, it is requested that if any information that has been cited by Applicant in the previous disclosure statements is known to be material for patentability as defined by 37 C.F.R. 1.56, or if Applicant is aware of a reference(s) that are of particular relevance, Applicant should highlight such prior-art references present a concise statement as to the relevance of that/those particular documents therein cited.
Response to Amendments / Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claims versus the previously raised claim rejections under 35 USC 103 based on the Ye – Gill combination have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as detailed below.
Amended claims 1 and 6:
(a) Applicant asserts that “The Examiner overlooks that Ye and Gill disclose modulators using entirely different technological solutions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would no motivation to consider any combination of Ye and Gill. Indeed, the differences between them would have prevented such a combination from being suggested” (2nd para. of the Remarks) and that “Using graphene flakes as active elements and providing an electro-optic susceptible waveguide are completely different solutions. The two technologies involve different demands and parameters, which would be understood by the person having ordinary skill in the art” (1st complete para. on p. 14).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the following:
(i) Ye and Gill each disclose an electro-optic modulator using different electro-optic materials, i.e., graphene and semiconductor, both of which have been known in the art for decades. Applicant’s appeal to non-descript “different technological solutions” is without merit.
(ii) Folded waveguide designs with U-turns, as shown in Gill, are applicable to an electro-optic device in any material. Applicant’s appeal to particulars of graphene processing is without merit on both technical and legal grounds.
(iii) Re-optimization of modulator parameters when transitioning from one electro-optic material to another would be well within ordinary skill in the art which is noted as being high in the art of electro-optic waveguide devices. Its practitioners (including the Examiner in his previous career) commonly hold advanced degrees and can routinely perform optimization and re-optimization of a given wavelength layout from one material to another, let alone incorporation of a waveguide U-turn.
(iv) While Applicant in effect argues that Ye and Gill are not art analogous to each other, the Examiner notes that the references are to be art analogous to the instant application and its claimed invention, but not necessarily to each other. In this regard, both Ye and Gill are art analogous to the instant application and its claimed invention, because Ye discloses a graphene-based electro-optic device and Gill solves the same problem of improving electro-optic efficiency by extending an interaction length within an electro-optic device by a folded layout (with bends).
(b) Applicant alleges that inadmissible hindsight was used (1st complete para. on p. 15). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that impermissible hindsight was neither applied nor needed, because the teachings of Gill (a folded waveguide layout with a U-turn) were applied to modify a waveguide structure in Ye and yielded an electro-optic device fully meeting the limitations recited by claim 1 and, in combination with Mototani, the limitations recited by claim 6, as was detailed in the Office Action of 6/18/25 and is provided below.
(c) For claim 6, Applicant repeats arguments (pp. 17 – 18) that are substantially similar/identical to those made with respect to claim 1 and that are not persuasive for the reasons provided above. Placement of contacts is both trivial and considered by the applied prior art, as detailed below.
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 5 and 11 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “High-Speed Optical Phase Modulator Based on Graphene-Silicon Waveguide” by Ye et al, IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN QUANTUM ELECTRONICS, VOL. 23, NO. 1, paper 3400105, 2017 (hereinafter Ye) in view of Gill (US 2010/0290732 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ye describes (Fig. 1; Abstract; Sections II and III) an electro-optical device, in particular a photodetector or a modulator, having an interaction region (along the longitudinal direction in Fig. 1) that comprises a longitudinal waveguide section and two active elements (denoted by two horizontal dashed lines in Fig 1), the active elements each comprising or consisting of at least one electro-optically active material, in particular graphene, the active (graphene) elements extending at least in sections above and/or below and/or within the longitudinal waveguide section, and two contact elements (Au/Pd contacts) being provided, which contact (Au/Pd) elements are each in contact with the active (graphene) elements, wherein one (left) contact is configured to serve as a signal contact and the other (right) contact is configured to serve as a ground contact (“A gate voltage is applied to the lower graphene flake, and the upper graphene flake is grounded” at 1st para. of Section III).
Ye describes only an embodiment with a straight waveguide and does not teach embodiments with a U-shaped waveguide. However, Gill discloses an electro-optic device/modulator (Figs. 1A and 1B; Abstract; para. 0021 – 0038) comprising a U-shaped waveguide 115 and having two interaction regions (left and right vertical interaction regions of electro-optic modulation), which each comprise a longitudinal waveguide section, the longitudinal waveguide sections of the two interaction regions being arranged spaced apart (along the horizontal direction in Fig. 1A) from one another, and two or more contact elements 170,172 (contact of an electrode structure, as detailed in Fig. 1B) being provided, which contact elements 170,172 are each in contact with active elements (142,144 which provide a moduting signal to the waveguide 115,122), wherein at least one inner contact element 172, which is arranged between the two spaced-apart longitudinal waveguide sections and serves as an inner signal contact, and two outer contact elements 180, which are each arranged on the other side of the respective longitudinal waveguide section with respect to the inner contact element 172 and each serve as an outer ground contact, are provided (“as illustrated in FIG. 1A, the device can include one or more ground lines 180 and one or more conductor lines 182 (e.g., hotlines). To facilitate transmission of the drive signal 140 to the electrical contacts 120, the ground lines 180 and conductor lines 182 can be physically coupled to one or more of the electrodes 170, 172” at para. 0050).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a straight waveguide and a two-electrode structure (S-G), as described by Ye can be modified, in accordance with the teachings of Gill, to become a U-shaped waveguide disposed and modulated along two interaction regions define by a three-electrode structure (G-S-G). The motivation for such folded/U-shaped design is that it can reduce the modulator length twofold for the same modulation efficiency which enables a compact electro-optic device (para. 0030 and 0031 of Gill).
An electro-optic device of the Ye – Gill combination is illustrated in Figure A below which is produced from Fig. 1A of Gill by adding electrical contacts 170,172 to the other (right) interaction region as needed to proper operation, i.e., electro-optic modulation along both (left and right) longitudinal sections (“as illustrated in FIG. 1A, the device can include one or more ground lines 180 and one or more conductor lines 182 (e.g., hotlines). To facilitate transmission of the drive signal 140 to the electrical contacts 120, the ground lines 180 and conductor lines 182 can be physically coupled to one or more of the electrodes 170, 172” at para. 0050 of Gill).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
881
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. An electro-optic device of the Ye – Gill combination.
As illustrated in Figure A above, the Ye – Gill combination considers that all 3 electrodes have contact elements, including at least two inner contacts that correspond to 172 in Fig. 1A of Gill and are in contact with the active element (graphene layers, according to Ye) of one (left) of the two interaction regions (identified as 155) and in contact with the active element of the other (right) interaction region.
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Ye – Gill combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
Regarding claim 2, the Ye – Gill combination considers (see Figure A above) that an outer contact element is provided, which is in contact both with the active element or one of the active elements of one interaction region and with the active element or one of the active elements of the other interaction region, or wherein two outer contact elements are provided, and one of the outer contact elements is in contact with the active element or one active element of one (left) interaction region and the other outer contact element (6) is in contact with the active element or one active element of the other (right) interaction region.
Regarding claim 3, the Ye – Gill combination considers (see Figure A above) that the two longitudinal waveguide sections are part of one U-shaped waveguide (denoted as 115 in Fig. 1A of Gill).
Regarding claim 4, the Ye – Gill combination renders obvious that the contemplated phase modulator (as intended by both Ye and Gill) can be inserted in at least one arm of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (two phase modulators are inserted in both arms of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer in Fig. 2 of Gill). A Mach-Zehnder waveguide interferometer comprises a bifurcation (input Y-branch) with two branching arms and one of the longitudinal waveguide sections is located in the region of one arm of the bifurcation respectively, preferably, wherein a splitter (1x2 splitter) is provided, by means of which an incoming light signal can be distributed to the two arms of the bifurcation, preferably in equal proportions (to achieve a 100% modulation depth; para. 0039 of Gill).
Regarding claim 5, the Ye – Gill combination considers that the waveguide (115 in Fig. 1A of Gill) is characterized at least in sections by an at least substantially U-shaped course with two arms being spaced apart from one another (along the horizontal direction in Fig. 1A), preferably extending at least substantially parallel to one another and in particular being rectilinear, and a connecting section connecting the two arms, wherein one of the two longitudinal waveguide sections lies in the region of one of the two arms respectively. The connecting section can have any suitable/workable shape, such as a continuously curved shape (as in Fig. 1A of Gill) or a pair of two 90-degree turns interconnected by an inner rectilinear section (as shown for each of waveguides 210,215 in Fig. 2 of Gill).
Regarding claims 11 – 13, the Ye – Gill combination considers an electro-optic modulator that meets all of the recited limitations, as detailed above for claims 1 – 5.
Regarding claim 14, the Ye – Gill combination considers that the longitudinal waveguide section (U-shaped waveguide) of the interaction region is part of a waveguide, at one end of which a coupling device (either an internal optical coupler (such as an input Y-branch coupler 216 and an output Y-branch coupler 217 in Fig. 2 of Gill) or an external optical coupler) for coupling light in and/or out is provided at both ends.
Regarding claim 15, the Ye – Gill combination considers that the at least one electro-optically active material is a material which absorbs electromagnetic radiation of at least one wavelength and generates an electrical photo-signal as a result of the absorption, and/or whose refractive index changes as a function of a voltage and/or the presence of charge and/or an electric field, in particular, wherein the at least one electro-optically active material is graphene (as described by Ye).
Claims 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Gill, and further in view of Mototani et al (JP 2013-210568).
Regarding claim 6, the teachings of Ye and Gill combine (see the arguments and motivation for combining, as provided above for claim 1; also Figure A) to consider a U-shaped waveguide disposed and modulated along two interaction regions define by a three-electrode structure (G-S-G). While the Ye – Gill combination considers only embodiments wherein the outer ground contacts (the left contact 170 and the right contact 107 in Fig. 1A are not directly interconnected by a U-shaped ground electrode 180, Mototani discloses an electro-optic modulator (para. 0013 – 0015) comprising a G-S-G electrode structure 3,51,52 including an inner signal contact 3 and two outer ground contacts 51,52. Mototani illustrates both embodiments (Figs. 1 and 5) with separate two outer ground contacts 51,52 and an embodiment (Fig. 3) wherein the two outer ground contacts 51,52 are interconnected by a third ground contact 54 to collectively form a U-shaped ground electrode of the same G-S-G type (“In the case of the present embodiment, the first ground electrode portion 51 and the second ground electrode portion 52 are connected by a conductive pattern 54 formed so as to wrap around the outside of both ends in the length direction of the resonant electrode 3” at para. 0031).
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 separate outer ground contacts of the Ye – Gill combination can alternative be interconnected to define a U-shaped ground electrode that has the same G-S-G type and wraps around the U-shaped optical waveguide.
An electro-optic device of the Ye – Gill – Mototani combination is illustrated in Figure B below which is produced from Fig. 1A of Gill by interconnecting the two outer ground contacts/electrodes to form a U-shaped ground contact/electrode (according to the teachings of Mototani). Modulation is provided on all 3 sides by using graphene active elements (according to the primary reference of Ye).
PNG
media_image2.png
811
1407
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B. An electro-optic device of the Ye – Gill – Mototani combination.
The Ye – Gill – Mototani combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations, as evidenced by self-explanatory mapping on the features of Figure B on to the corresponding limitations recited by claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the Ye – Gill – Mototani combination considers (Figure B provided above for claim 6) that the longitudinal waveguide section (a U-shaped waveguide with an open side) is part of a non-annularly closed waveguide.
Regarding claim 9, the Ye – Gill – Mototani combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations, as detailed above for claim 2.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al (WO 2016/106731) in view of Gill (US 2010/0290732 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Wong describes (Figs. 1 and 2; Abstract) an electro-optical device, in particular a photodetector, having an interaction region (along the longitudinal direction in Figs. 1 and 2) that comprises a longitudinal waveguide section and at least one active element 13 (graphene layer), the active element comprising or consisting of an electro-optically active material, in particular graphene, the active (graphene) elements extending at least in sections above and/or below and/or within the longitudinal waveguide section, and two contact elements (Au contacts, as identified in Fig. 1) being provided, which contact (Au) elements are each in contact with the active (graphene) element, wherein one contact (the left Au contact in Fig. 1) is configured to serve as a signal contact and the other (right) contact is configured to serve as a ground contact.
Wong describes only an embodiment with a straight waveguide 11,12 and does not teach embodiments with a U-shaped waveguide. However, Gill discloses an electro-optic device/modulator (Figs. 1A and 1B; Abstract; para. 0021 – 0038) comprising a U-shaped waveguide 115 and having two interaction regions (left and right vertical interaction regions of electro-optic modulation), which each comprise a longitudinal waveguide section, the longitudinal waveguide sections of the two interaction regions being arranged spaced apart (along the horizontal direction in Fig. 1A) from one another, and two or more contact elements 170,172 (contact of an electrode structure, as detailed in Fig. 1B) being provided, which contact elements 170,172 are each in contact with active elements (142,144 which provide a modulating signal to the waveguide 115,122), wherein at least one inner contact element 172, which is arranged between the two spaced-apart longitudinal waveguide sections and serves as an inner signal contact, and two outer contact elements 180, which are each arranged on the other side of the respective longitudinal waveguide section with respect to the inner contact element 172 and each serve as an outer ground contact, are provided (“as illustrated in FIG. 1A, the device can include one or more ground lines 180 and one or more conductor lines 182 (e.g., hotlines). To facilitate transmission of the drive signal 140 to the electrical contacts 120, the ground lines 180 and conductor lines 182 can be physically coupled to one or more of the electrodes 170, 172” at para. 0050).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a straight waveguide and a two-electrode structure (S-G), as described by Wong can be modified, in accordance with the teachings of Gill, to become a U-shaped waveguide disposed and modulated along two interaction regions define by a three-electrode structure (G-S-G). The motivation for such folded/U-shaped design is that it can reduce the modulator length twofold for the same modulation efficiency which enables a compact electro-optic device (para. 0030 and 0031 of Gill).
The Wong – Gill combination considers that the contemplated device is formed as a photodetector and the interaction region or the respective interaction region comprises exactly one active element, preferably, wherein the inner contact element or one of the inner contact elements and the outer contact element or one of the outer contact elements are in contact with the one active element, particularly preferably on opposite sides of the one active element.
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Wong – Gill combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
Claims 16 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Gill, and further in view of Miyazaki et al (US 2022/0146902 A1).
Regarding claims 16 and 21, the Ye – Gill combination does not detail how a modulating electric signal is input into the contemplated G-S-G electrode structure. However, Miyazaki discloses (Figs. 1and 3; Abstract; para. 0062 – 0076) an electro-optic device comprising a plurality of electro-optic modulators, each modulator comprising a G-S-G electrode structure 112,122 defining a co-planar waveguide (CPW) structure. Miyazaki expressly teaches a connection device 118 (relay substrate) for connecting to a coaxial and/or coplanar conductor 116 (“Each of the electrical connectors 116 is, for example, a socket of a push-on type coaxial connector” at para. 0071), wherein the connection device 118 comprises one or more inner connection contact elements 340 serving as a ground contact and one or more outer connection contact elements 330 serving as a signal contact (para. 0072), wherein the inner contact element(s) 112 of the electro-optical device/modulator are connected to the inner connection contact element(s) 330 of the connection device 118 (as shown in Fig. 3), and wherein the outer contact element(s) 122 of the electro-optical device/modulator are connected to the outer connection contact element(s) 340 of the connection device 118 (as shown in Fig. 3; para. 0074 and 0075).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a modulating electric signal can be input into the contemplated G-S-G electrode structure of the Ye – Gill combination by using a connection device (relay substrate), as taught by Miyazaki, in order to enable efficient and low-loss electrical connection to the multiple electrodes with suppressed crosstalk (para. 0035 of Miyazaki).
Regarding claim 17, the Ye – Gill – Miyazaki combination considers a semiconductor apparatus comprising a (silicon-based) chip (as shown in Fig. 1 of Ye; a silicon-on-insulator chip at para. 0020 and 0048 of Gill) and at least one, preferably a plurality of electro-optical devices/modulators (as shown in Fig. 1 of Miyazaki), wherein the device or the devices are preferably arranged on the chip.
Regarding claim 19, the Ye – Gill – Miyazaki combination considers that the device or the devices can be fabricated (e.g., by lithography and etching) and arranged on a wafer, such a silicon-on-insulator wafer (SOI) (cited art para. 0020, 0048, and 0058 of Gill).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, the Ye – Gill – Miyazaki combination considers that the contemplated device is part of a photonic platform fabricated on the chip (“The optical waveguide components 615 can include thermo-optic filters, electro-optic modulators, including at least one of the disclosed modulators 110 (FIGS. 1A-5), and photo-detectors, that are coupled to each other, and to the active electronic components 610” at para. 0051).
Additionally or alternatively, the Examiner took official notice in the Office Action of 6/18/25 that semiconductor photonic platforms with a plurality of optical and electronic components integrated therein were well known in the art. Since Applicant has not traversed the official notice, the fact of common knowledge has become applicant admitted prior art. The use of the contemplated device/modulator in a semiconductor photonic platform would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a suitable application area.
Allowable Subject Matter
The subject matter pertaining to claim 8 would be allowable, if Applicant rewrites it in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
The reason for indicating allowable subject matter is that none of the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, provides a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use different cross-sectional areas of two arms of a U-shaped waveguide. The instant application recognizes the problem of a high-frequency mode that can be asymmetrically excited due to a difference in absorbed optical power in the two arms and solves the problem by using different cross-sectional areas for them so as to equalize the amounts of power absorbed by the arms (para. 0148 of the instant specification).
Conclusion
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 12/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and have failed to place the instant application in condition for allowance. 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