The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/27/26 has been entered. Claims 1, 11, and 17 have been amended, claims 10 and 16 canceled, and claims 18 – 20 added. Claims 1 – 9, 11, 13 – 15, and 17 – 20 are pending.
Response to Amendments / Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previously raised claim rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Specifically, the new limitations in independent claim 1 incorporate the limitations of canceled claim 10 which was rejected in the Office Action of 1/28/26 by the Meister – Yasu – Bishop combination. Accordingly, the Examiner applies the prior-art combination to amended claim 1 and details below how the prior-art combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the limitations recited by the amended claims.
In view of the limitations recited by new claims 18 – 20, the Examiner vacates the alternative ground of rejections, as presented in the Office Action of 1/28/26 by the Meister – Yasu – Krichevsky combination. It is noted that Applicant’s remarks addressed only the Meister – Yasu – Krichevsky combination, but not the Meister – Yasu – Bishop combination.
Independent claim 1 is rejected by using the Meister – Yasu – Bishop combination, 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 independent claim.
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, 11, 15, and 17 – 20 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), and further in view of Bishop et al (US 2021/0263216 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 states that the amplifier 220 is electrically connected to the substrate 100 (para. 0073), but does not expressly teach (i) electronics configured to operate the amplifier. Also, 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), and does not expressly teach (ii) angled reflecting surfaces disposed within a recess extending into the semiconductor substrate 100. However, Yasu and Bishop provide features (i) and (ii) respectively, as detailed below.
As for feature (i), 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 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).
As for feature (ii), Meister illustrates the use of angled reflecting surfaces 210a,210b for coupling light in and out of the optical bridge 205, but 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.
PNG
media_image2.png
606
1129
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Figure A. A system of the Meister – Yasu – Bishop combination.
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Meister – Yasu – Bishop combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
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 claims 2, the Meister – Yasu –Bishop combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the first (left) optical pathway extends from a first location (at the left vertical surface of the left diverter) where the light signal enters the optical bridge to a first location where the light signal exits the optical bridge (and enters the left/input endface amplifier 220, as seen in Fig. 1 of Meiser), 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 the right vertical surface of the right diverter) where the light signal exits the optical bridge.
Regarding claim 3, the Meister – Yasu – Bishop combination renders obvious (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the optical bridge includes a bridge body, the bridge body comprising an upper bridge body and a lower bridge body, each of the bodies being a single, continuous material/element. While Figure A shows, by way of example but not limitation, the upper bridge body and the lower bridge body being spatially separated from each other by an air gap, it is obvious that they can be connected, e.g., by extending the inner portions of the diverters to reach the upper bridge body. The inner portions of the diverters do not guide light and can be shaped, e.g., by extending their height, width, etc, without changing the operation of the device. Forming the upper bridge body and the lower bridge body as a single/integral element may simply packaging. It is also noted that it has been held by courts that making parts integral or separate is within the ordinary skill in the art (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (MPEP 2144.04, Section V, B and C).
Regarding claim 5, the Meister – Yasu – Bishop combination renders obvious (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the first (left) optical pathway the first (left/upward) optical pathway and the second (right/downward) optical pathway are free space regions (a portion of the recesses immediately above the lenses of the left and right diverters disposed in the recesses).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, the Meister – Yasu – Bishop 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, the Meister – Yasu – Bishop combination renders obvious (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the first (left) location where the light signal enters the optical bridge is included in a collimator/lens (of the left diverter) and that the second (right) location where the light signal exits the optical bridge is included in a collimator/lens of the left diverter).
As an aside, it is noted that the lenses of the left and right diverters in Figure A directly correspond to the lenses 472,480 in Fig. 17A of the instant application, as evident by a direct side-by-side comparison of the two Figures which is provided below.
PNG
media_image2.png
606
1129
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure A
PNG
media_image3.png
392
688
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 17A of the instant application
Regarding claim 9, the Meister – Yasu – Bishop combination renders obvious (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the upper portion of the optical bridge can be wide enough to have an overhang (in a top-down/plan view) with respect to the ends of first and second waveguides so that the optical bridge (it upper portion) is positioned over the first waveguide and the second waveguide such that a (right) portion of the first (left) waveguide 130a is between the optical bridge and a base 110 of the semiconductor chip 100 (in a top-down/plan view) and such that a (left) portion of the second (right) waveguide 130b is between the optical bridge and a base 110 of the semiconductor chip 100.
Regarding claim 11, the Meister – Yasu –Bishop combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) 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 1) 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 17, the Meister – Yasu –Bishop combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) 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).
Regarding claim 18, the Meister – Yasu –Bishop combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the optical bridge includes a facet (as identified in Figure A) positioned in the recess and optically aligned with the facet of the first waveguide 130a such that the facet included in the optical bridge receives the light signal from the facet of the first waveguide 130a.
Regarding claim 19, the Meister – Yasu –Bishop combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the optical bridge includes a (left) signal diverter positioned in the (left) recess such that a first (left) facet of the signal diverter is optically aligned with the facet of the first waveguide 130a such that the first facet of the signal diverter receives the light signals directly from the facet of the first waveguide 130a (as seen in Figure A).
Regarding claim 20, the Meister – Yasu –Bishop combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the first (left) facet of the (left) signal diverter is positioned in the (left) recess.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meister in view of Yasu, in view of Bishop, 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 –Bishop 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 –Bishop combination can have small dimensions, e.g., on the order of a few millimeters, as exemplified by Lin.
The Meister – Yasu –Bishop – Lin combination does not detail a size of the optical device/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 –Bishop – Lin combination can also have small dimensions, e.g., on the order of a millimeter, as exemplified by Doany.
The Meister – Yasu –Bishop – 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/amplifier 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 –Bishop – 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2015/0226917 A1
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