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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 14, 2026, with respect to claims 10-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 10, 11, and 14-20 and the objection to claims 12 and 13 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed April 14, 2026, with respect to claims 1-9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, heater 132 of previously cited US 2017/0045689 (“ZHANG”) is shown in previously cited FIG. 1 thereof to be a segment of an overall ring structure 100, such that it seems broadly reasonable to read the heater 132 of ZHANG on the claimed heater ring. Second, previously cited US 2004/0071401 (“ELDADA”) explicitly teaches in the previously cited par. [0060] a heater in which the width thereof increases. Furthermore, previously cited FIGs. 7 and 11 show that this increase in width occurs non-linearly as a distance from the heater. When the heater ring of ZHANG is modified by such a heater of ELDADA, as previously set forth, the claimed subject matter is rendered obvious. As such, Examiner maintains the validity of the outstanding claim rejection.
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 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG in view of ELDADA.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, ZHANG teaches an integrated chip (100), comprising: a semiconductor waveguide layer (111) over a base dielectric layer (107), the semiconductor waveguide layer forming a bus waveguide (120) and a micro-ring waveguide (110) alongside the bus waveguide; a heater (130) over the micro-ring waveguide, the heater including a heater ring (132), a first heater contact pad (150, to the outside of micro-ring waveguide 110), a first heater arm (between heater ring 132 and the first heater contact pad) extending from the heater ring to the first heater contact pad, a second heater contact pad (150, to the inside of micro-ring 110), and a second heater arm (between heater ring 132 and the second heater contact pad) extending from the heater ring to the second heater contact pad; a first contact (150) coupled to the heater at the first heater contact pad; and a second contact (also 150; FIG. 8) coupled to the heater at the second heater contact pad.
ZHANG does not teach that a width of the first heater arm increases non-linearly at a rate which increases as a distance from the heater ring increases. ELDADA teaches a heater arm which increases non-linearly at a rate which increases as a distance from a heater ring increases (FIGs. 7, 11; par. [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the heater arm of ZHANG such that its width increases non-linearly at a rate which increases as a distance from the heater ring increases, as taught by ELDADA. The motivation would have been to better compensate for chromatic dispersion (par. [0060]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, ZHANG in view of ELDADA renders obvious that a difference between an outer radius of the heater ring and an inner radius of the heater ring is equal to a first value, wherein the width of the first heater arm is equal to a second value, and wherein the width of the first heater arm increases non-linearly from the second value at the first location to a third value at a second location laterally spaced from the first location and the heater ring (ZHANG, FIG. 1; in view of ELDADA, par. [0060], as above). The remaining limitations appear to involve mere optimization. It has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to optimize the values of the first, second, and third values of ZHANG, as set forth in the instant claims.
Regarding claim 7, ZHANG teaches that a width of the first heater contact pad is greater than a maximum width of the first heater arm (FIG. 1).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, ZHANG in view of ELDADA renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 1. The additional limitations appear to involve mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to duplicate the heater contact pads and heater arms of ZHANG as set forth in the instant claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole, as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious that the width of the first heater arm increases non-linearly from a first location where the first heater arm joins the heater ring to a second location laterally spaced from the first location and the heater ring, and wherein the width of the first heater arm is approximately constant from the second location to a third location where the first heater arm joins the first heater contact pad.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole, as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious that the width of the first heater arm increases non-linearly from a first location where the first heater arm joins the heater ring to a second location laterally spaced from the first location and the heater ring, and wherein the width of the first heater arm increases linearly from the second location to a third location where the first heater arm joins the first heater contact pad.
Regarding claims 10-16, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole, as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious a conductive heater layer over the cladding layer and the micro-ring waveguide, the conductive heater layer forming a heater ring extending in a closed loop, a first heater contact pad, a first heater arm extending from the heater ring to the first heater contact pad, a second heater contact pad, and a second heater arm extending from the heater ring to the second heater contact pad, wherein the first heater arm is formed by a pair of first sidewalls and a pair of second sidewalls of the conductive heater layer.
Regarding claims 17-20, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole, as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious etching a semiconductor waveguide layer to form a bus waveguide and a micro- ring waveguide from the semiconductor waveguide layer, the micro-ring waveguide extending in a first closed loop; depositing a cladding layer over the bus waveguide and the micro-ring waveguide; forming a heater over the micro-ring waveguide, the heater including a heater ring extending in a second closed loop that is aligned with the first closed loop, a first heater contact pad, a first heater arm extending from the heater ring to the first heater contact pad, a second heater contact pad, and a second heater arm extending from the heater ring to the second heater contact pad, wherein the first heater arm has a first width at a first location where the first heater arm joins the heater ring, wherein the first heater arm has a second width, greater than the first width, at a second location located between the heater ring and the first heater contact pad, and wherein the width of the first heater arm increases non-linearly from the first width at the first location to the second width at the second location.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
/JERRY M BLEVINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights