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 10/11/25 are acknowledged. Claims 1, 6, 11, and 15 have been amended, claim 12 canceled and claims 16 and 17 added. Claims 1 – 11 and 13 – 17 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The four IDS’ filed on 10/10/25 and 10/11/25 have been received and considered by the Examiner. It is noted that the Examiner has reviewed the references as best possible, however, the IDS cite an extremely large number of references 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 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. Specifically, Applicant canceled claim 12 which defined that the optical device was an isolator and amended claim 1 to recite an amplifier as the optical device held by the optical bridge. Accordingly, the Examiner applied a reference by Meister et al (US 2019/0207368 A1) that has been yielded by an update prior rt search and discloses an optical bridge holding an amplifier. In combination with other prior art of record, Meister teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the limitations recited by the amended claims.
As a relevant comment, it is noted that Applicant also added “LIDAR” in the preamble of claim 1 and appears to have disregarded the Section “Election/Restriction” in the Office Action of 5/12/25 that clearly explained how Applicant elected the optical bridge (sub-combination) by original presentation, because the claims did not recite any other particulars of LIDAR system into which the claimed optical bridge may be included. Applicant is also reminded that a mere recital of an application area/system in a claim preamble is not given patentable weight.
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 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meister et al (US 2019/0207368 A1) in view of Yasu et al (US 2025/0377457 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Meister discloses (Figs. 1 and 2; Abstract; para. 0053 – 0079) a system, comprising (see annotated Fig. 1 below):
a semiconductor chip 100 (comprising silicon; para. 0054) having (top and bottom) faces between lateral (vertical) sides, the semiconductor chip 100 having a photonic integrated circuit (within 120) with a first waveguide 130a and a second waveguide 130b; and
an optical bridge 205, the optical bridge 205 being positioned over a first one (top face) of the faces of the semiconductor chip 100, the optical bridge 205 configured to receive a light signal from the first waveguide 130a and the second waveguide 130b configured to receive the light signal from the optical bridge 205, the optical bridge 205 holding an optical device 220 (amplifier; para. 0061) and being configured to direct the light signal along a first optical pathway (upward) and along a second optical pathway (downward), the first optical pathway (upward S), the optical device 220 (horizonal light propagation), and the second optical pathway (downward S) configured such that the light signal received from the first waveguide 130a travels through the optical bridge 205 along the first optical pathway (upward), then (horizontally) through the optical device 220 and then travels through the optical bridge 205 along the second optical pathway (downward) before being received at the second waveguide 130b (to form an inverted U-shape path),
wherein the optical device 220 is an amplifier (para. 0061).
PNG
media_image1.png
629
1446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Meister.
Meister teaches (para. 0060 – 0073) that the amplifier 220 is configured to amplify a power of the light signal (generated by a laser 150), is formed of doped semiconductor materials, and comprises electrical contacts/pads 220a,220b (shown in Fig. 8; para. 0099) to receiving a control electrical signal. Meister also states that the amplifier 220 is electrically connected to the substrate 100 (para. 0073). Hence, Meister generally renders obvious electronics configured to operate the amplifier. While Meister does not explicitly illustrate such electronics, Yasu discloses (Figs. 34, 45, and 46; para. 0222 – 0226 and 0268 – 0275) a semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA) 200 that comprises electrical contacts/pads 230 (as identified in Fig. 45) for receiving a control electrical signal from electronics (DAC4 and a control unit 150, as shown in Fig. 34; “an optical amplifier (semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA)) 200 provided between the splitter 30 and the circulator 40; and the DAC 4 that supplies electric power to the optical amplifier 200” at para. 0222) configured to operate the amplifier 200.
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 optical amplifier 220 is controlled by electronics, as needed for its proper operation, as generally suggested by Meister, and as explicitly illustrated by Yasu.
The Meister – Yasu combination considers that the optical amplifier can be comprised in a LIDAR system (e.g., a ranging device shown in Fig. 34 of Yasu; “The present embodiment is a ranging device (LiDAR) of a frequency modulated continuation wave (FMCW) method in which such a photonic circuit and an electronics circuit are integrated on the same semiconductor substrate (for example, the same silicon substrate)” at para. 0111).
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Meister – Yasu combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
Regarding claims 2, Meister teaches (see annotated Fig. 1 provided above for claim 1) that the first (left) optical pathway extends from a first location (at an interface SS1; para. 0066) where the light signal enters the optical bridge 205 to a first location where the light signal exits the optical bridge 205 (and enters the left/input endface amplifier 220, as seen in Fig. 1), and
the second (right) optical pathway extends from a second location (the right/output endface of the amplifier 220) where the light signal (re)enters the optical bridge to a second location (at an interface SS2; para. 0066) where the light signal exits the optical bridge 205.
Regarding claim 3, the Meister – Yasu combination renders obvious (see annotated Fig. 1 provided above for claim 1) that the optical bridge 205 includes a bridge body, the first (left) optical pathway and the second (right) optical pathway being contained within the bridge body 205, and the bridge body being a single, continuous material (as evident from Figs. 1 – 5 and 12; para. 0062).
Regarding claim 5, Meister teaches (Figs. 1 and 2) that the first (left) optical pathway the first (left/upward) optical pathway and the second (right/downward) optical pathway are free space regions S (between lenses 140a,140b and gratings 135a,135b, as detailed in Fig. 2; para. 0055, 0058, and 0070).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, the Meister – Yasu combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations, as detailed above for claims 2, 3, and 5.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Meister teaches (Figs. 1 and 2) that the first (left) location where the light signal enters the optical bridge 205 is included in a collimator/lens 140a and that the second (right) location where the light signal exits the optical bridge 205 is included in a collimator/lens 140b (a collimating/focusing effect is detailed in Fig. 2; para. 0055, 0058, and 0070).
Regarding claim 9, Meister teaches (Figs. 1 and 2) that the optical bridge 205 is positioned over the first waveguide 130a and the second waveguide 103b such that a (right) portion of the first waveguide 130a is between the optical bridge 205 and a base 110 of the semiconductor chip 100 (as seen in Fig. 1) and such that a (left) portion of the second waveguide 130b is between the optical bridge 205 and a base 110 of the semiconductor chip 100.
Claims 10, 11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meister in view of Yasu, and further in view of Krichevsky (US 2019/0146164 A1).
Regarding claim 10, while Meister illustrates the use of angled reflecting surfaces 210a,210b for coupling light in and out of the optical bridge 205, Meister illustrates only embodiments wherein light is coupled out of the first waveguide 130a and coupled into the second waveguide 130b by using grating couplers 135a,135b (para. 0070), rather than angle reflecting surfaces. However, Krichevsky discloses (Figs. 2A and 2B; para. 0032 – 0037) a system that has essential structural features similar to those in Meister and comprises (see annotated Figs. 2A and 2B below):
a semiconductor (silicon) chip 220 (“silicon substrate 220” at para. 0033) having faces between lateral sides, the semiconductor chip 220 having a photonic integrated circuit with a first waveguide 228 and a second waveguide 232 (Fig. 2A; para. 0033);
an optical bridge 216,204,212 (“Referring to FIG. 2A, optical isolator bridge 200 is a small structure including an array of lenses 204, an optical isolator 208, and folding prisms 212 ... isolator bridge 200 is also built on a silicon substrate 216” at para. 0033), the optical bridge 216,204,212 being positioned over a first (top) one of the faces of the semiconductor chip 220 (as seen in Fig. 2A),
the optical bridge 216,204,212 configured to receive a light signal from the first (input) waveguide 228 and the second (output) waveguide 232 configured to receive the light signal from the optical bridge 216,204,212, the optical bridge 216,204,212 holding an optical device 208 (isolator; para. 0033) and being configured to direct the light signal along a first optical pathway (comprising the left vertical pathway passing through the left prism 212, as seen in Fig. 2B) and along a second optical pathway (comprising the right vertical pathway passing through the right prism 212, as seen in Fig. 2B),
the first optical pathway, the optical device, and the second optical pathway configured such that the light signal received from the first (input) waveguide 228 travels through the optical bridge 216,204,212 along the first (left) optical pathway, then through the optical device 208 and then travels through the optical bridge 216,204,212 along the second (right) optical pathway before being received at the second (output) waveguide 232 (“Isolator bridge 200 has a predefined array of vertical emission or entrance points that interface with substrate 200 at V-grooves 224, which reflect light from waveguides 228. The light taken from the chip undergoes optical isolation, and optionally magnification, and is then redirected to output waveguides 232 on the same chip” at para. 0033).
PNG
media_image2.png
643
1371
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 2A and 2B of Krichevsky.
Krichevsky explicitly illustrates the use of angled reflecting surfaces for coupling light in and out of both the optical bridge and the waveguides. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that light can be coupled in and out of the first and second waveguides 130a,130b in Meister by using angled reflecting surfaces as a suitable means that is used by Meister for the optical bridge, explicitly illustrated by Krichevsky for coupling light in and out of optical waveguides, and has little/no chromatic dispersion compared to grating couplers which ensures operation within a broader wavelength range.
The Meister – Yasu – Krichevsky combination considers that a recess (corresponding to a V-groove in Fig. 1A of Krichevsky) extends into the semiconductor chip such that a first lateral side of the recess serve as a facet of the first waveguide (104 in Fig. 1A of Krichevsky) and the optical bridge (at least a portion of down-protruding coating AR) is positioned in the recess such that the optical bridge receives the light signal from the facet of the first waveguide.
Regarding claim 11, the Meister – Yasu – Krichevsky combination considers that the optical bridge includes a reflecting surface 116 (mirror surface in Fig. 1A of Krichevsky) optically aligned with the facet of the first waveguide 104 such that the reflecting surface 116 is configured to receive the light signal, the reflecting surface 116 configured to redirect the light signal such that the light signal travels away (upward) from the reflecting surface and toward a location over a first face of the semiconductor chip.
Regarding claim 15, the Meister – Yasu – Krichevsky combination considers that the first waveguide 130a (in Fig. 1 of Meister) terminates at a port that includes a reflecting surface (corresponding to the mirror surface 116 in Fig. 1A of Krichevsky) configured to receive the light signal from the first waveguide and redirect the light signal such that the light signal travels (upward) away from the reflecting surface 116 and toward a location over a first face of the semiconductor chip, the optical bridge 205 (in Fig. 1 of Meister) configured to receive the light signal from the reflecting surface.
Regarding claim 16, the Meister – Yasu – Krichevsky combination considers (Fig. 1A of Krichevsky) that a (left) side of the recess 112 (V-groove) serves as the facet of the first waveguide 104.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meister in view of Yasu, in view of Lin et al (US 2018/0331493 A1), and further in view of “A Four-Channel Silicon Photonic Carrier with Flip-Chip Integrated Semiconductor Optical Amplifier (SOA) array Providing >10-dB Gain” by Doany et al, IEEE 66th Electronics and Technology Conference, 2016 (hereinafter Doany).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the Meister – Yasu combination intends the system to be small-sized (para. 0007 of Meister; para. 0180 of Yasu), but does not exemplify such sizes. However, Lin discloses (Figs. 2 and 4; para. 0038 – 0045) an optical device 305 disposed in an optical bench 309, the latter having dimensions (length and height) on the order of a few millimeters (para. 0045). 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 optical bridge of the Meister – Yasu combination can have small dimensions, e.g., on the order of a few millimeters, as exemplified by Lin.
The Meister – Yasu – Lin combination does not detail a size of the optical amplifier. However, Doany describes (Figs. 1 and 2; Section II) a semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA) and details that its length is ~ 1 mm (last para. on p. 1062). 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 optical amplifier of the Meister – Yasu – Lin combination can also have small dimensions, e.g., on the order of a millimeter, as exemplified by Doany.
The Meister – Yasu – Lin – Doany combination considers that the optical bridge and the semiconductor chip can each have a length and width on the order of a few mm with a total area of under 10 mm2. A projection of the optical bridge onto the semiconductor chip is less than the total area and can be on the order of several mm2. A total pathlength that the light signal travels through the optical bridge and the optical device is equal to the sum of the optical bridge length and twice its heigh and is on the order of several mm.
It is also noted that (i) the range limits depend on a particular application (acceptable/intended footprint, a distance between the waveguides to be coupled by the optical bridge, etc); that (ii) the instant application does not provide any criticality for the exact values of the recited range limits; that (iii) it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges of prior art involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233); and that (iv) it has been held that "A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective." In re Applied Materials', Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012). It is well settled that it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to develop workable or even optimum ranges for result-effective parameters. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980); see also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577-78 (Fed. Cir. 1990). To this end, the Meister – Yasu – Lin – Doany combination intends to have a small-sized optical bridge for enabling smaller LIDAR modules/systems and regards physical dimensions of the optical bridge and the optical device as result-effective parameters.
Claims 10, 11, and 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meister in view of Yasu, and further in view of Bishop et al (US 2021/0263216 A1).
Regarding claim 10, while Meister illustrates the use of angled reflecting surfaces 210a,210b for coupling light in and out of the optical bridge 205, Meister illustrates only embodiments wherein light is coupled out of the first waveguide 130a and coupled into the second waveguide 130b by using grating couplers 135a,135b (para. 0070), rather than angled reflecting surfaces. However, Bishop discloses (Figs. 2A – 2C and 3B; Abstract; para. 0042 – 0043 and 0076) an optical waveguide 210A,210B,210C that is configured to propagate light 241. The light 241 is out-coupled by forming a recess/cavity 221 that extends into a chip 242,210 (Fig. 2A; para. 0046) such that a first lateral side 222 of the recess 221 serves as a facet of the optical waveguide 210A,210B,210C (para. 0046) and an optical bridge 243 is positioned in the recess such that the optical bridge 243 receives the light signal 241 from the facet of the optical waveguide 210A,210B,210C and reflects/redirects the light signal 241 upward by using an angled reflecting/mirror surface 209; Fig. 2A; 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 light can be coupled in and out of the first and second waveguides 130a,130b in Meister by using angled reflecting surfaces as a suitable means that is used by Meister for the optical bridge, explicitly illustrated by Bishop for coupling light in and out of an optical waveguide, and has little/no chromatic dispersion compared to grating couplers which ensures operation within a broader wavelength range.
A system of the Meister – Yasu – Bishop combination is illustrated in Figure A which is produced by replacing the grating couplers 135a,135b in Meister by diverters (243 in Fig. 2A of Bishop) disposed in recesses.
PNG
media_image3.png
612
1082
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure A. A system of the Meister – Yasu – Bishop combination.
As an aside and relevant comment, it is also noted that the system of the Meister – Yasu –Bishop combination has essential structural features and principle of operation that are substantially similar/identical to those of the embodiment in Fig. 17A of the instant application, as evident by a direct side-by-side comparison of Figure A and Fig. 17A.
Regarding claim 11, the Meister – Yasu –Bishop combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 10) that the optical bridge (its lower portion/diverter which corresponds 243 in Fig. 2A of Bishop) includes a reflecting surface 209 optically aligned with the facet 222 of the first waveguide 210A,210B,210C such that the reflecting surface 209 is configured to receive the light signal 241, the reflecting surface 209 configured to redirect the light signal 241 such that the light signal travels (upward) away from the reflecting surface 209 and toward a location over a first face of the semiconductor chip (as seen in Fig. 2A of Bishop).
Regarding claim 15, the Meister – Yasu –Bishop combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 10) that the first waveguide (corresponds to 210A,210B,210C in Fig. 2A of Bishop) terminates at a port that includes a reflecting surface 209 configured to receive the light signal 241 from the first waveguide 210A,210B,210C and redirect the light signal 241 such that the light signal 241 travels (upward) away from the reflecting surface 209 and toward a location over a first face of the semiconductor chip, the optical bridge (its upper portion which corresponds to 205 in Fig. 1 of Meister) configured to receive the light signal 241 from the reflecting surface 209.
Regarding claim 16, the Meister – Yasu –Bishop combination considers (Fig. 2A of Bishop; Figure A provided above for claim 10) that a side 222 of the recess 221 serves as the facet of the first waveguide 210A,210B,210C.
Regarding claim 17, the Meister – Yasu –Bishop combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 10) that the optical bridge includes a component holder (the upper part which corresponds to 205 in Fig. 1 of Meister) and a signal diverter (the lower part which disposed in a recess and corresponds to 243 in Fig. 2A of Bishop), the amplifier 220 being held by the component holder 205 (as in Fig. 1 of Meister), and the reflecting surface 209 being included in the signal diverter 243 (as shown in Fig. 2A of Bishop) and the location over the first face of the semiconductor chip being a second reflecting surface 210a included in the component holder 205 (as in Fig. 1 of Meister; para. 0061).
Conclusion
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