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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/25 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-9, 12-16, and 18-20 are currently pending examination.
Claim Interpretation
Waveguides are physical structures designed to confine and guide EM waves. As provided by Applicant (see Fig 1-2 and supporting text) waveguide structures are at least derived via deposition and patterning of fixed optical device films. No particular dimensions are requisite to any particular waveguide within the original disclosure of Applicant, but rather only appear distinguished by designation of “bending waveguide” and “straight waveguide”, wherein the bending waveguide can possess curvature / bending radius as opposed to being straight. So with respect to the amended term “entire bending waveguide” the Examiner interprets such as term as at least inclusive of a structure designed to confine and guide EM waves which possesses curvature/ bending radius.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hassan et al (US 2016/0299292; as provided in the 12/9/24 IDS, hereafter Hassan) in view of Arai et al (JP 2000131547; citations to machine translation provided herein; hereafter Arai). {Chemistry Data Booklet (c) International Baccalaureate Organization 2014, 44pgs; hereafter Chemistry; relied upon only as evidence (particularly for claim 12)}.
Claim 1: Hassan teaches a method, comprising:
depositing an optical device film (2) atop a base layer(3, 4, or 3+4),(see, for example, abstract, Fig 1, 2A, [0042]);
patterning the optical device film into a plurality of sections including (sections, zones, and or locations of interest) including a bending waveguide and a straight waveguide (See, for example, Fig 1, Fig 4, abstract, [0031], [0051], [0066-0069], wherein bending waveguide is interpreted as a waveguide structure possessing which possesses curvature/ bending radius whereas a straight waveguide does not);
forming a mask (such structured hard mask 51) over a second section of the plurality of sections of the optical device film to protect the second section while the first section is implanted (See, for example, Fig 1, Fig 4, Fig 7, [0060-0062]).
further, forming a mask directly atop the base layer without forming the mask over any portion of the first section (see, for example Fig 1, Fig 7C, [0042], and [0045] wherein waveguide layer 2/20 is taught to be etched following deposition to achieve the desired waveguide structure, further including rib type (as depicted in Fig 7), or alternatively strip type (not presently depicted), but which would have been further etched to the width of the strip waveguide, thus creating a structure wherein ribs of 20 existing between 51 and base 30 would not exist, thus at these areas the mask would be formed directly atop the base layer).
and implanting the first section of the plurality of sections of the optical device film to adjust a refractive index of the first section (See, for example, Fig 2a-b, Fig 4, Fig7, abstract, [0009], [0032]).
Hassan teaches the method above and further teaches providing various structured optical devices comprising a plurality of waveguides including both bending waveguides and straight waveguides, and wherein ion implantation is provided to said waveguides to aid in tailoring of refractive index (See, for example, Fig 1, Fig 4, abstract, rejection of claim 1 above). But Hassan does not explicitly teach wherein particularly the first section is a bending waveguide and the second section is a straight waveguide. Arai teaches a method of producing optical devices and particularly reducing radiation loss within optical devices comprising curved and straight waveguides (See, for example, abstract, [0002-0004]). Arai teaches wherein radiation loss is known in the art to occur at curved waveguides, and wherein such loss can be combatted by increasing the refractive index at curved waveguide sections relative to linear waveguide sections (See, for example, [0005-6]). Arai like Hassan similarly teaches wherein a higher refractive index can be predictably achieved by ion implantation (see, for example, [0006]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated selecting a first section as a bending waveguide and the second section as comprising a straight waveguide and selectively ion implanting only the bending waveguide(s) while similarly masking at least the straight waveguide(s) since such preferential ion implanting would predictably increase the refractive index of the curved waveguide(s) relative to the linear waveguides thus predictably resulting in lower propagation loss.
The combination of Hassan in view of Arai further teaches wherein the mask protects the second section while the first section is implanted (see, for example, [0060-0062] and the preceding paragraphs wherein the “second section” would align with and include straight waveguide(s), and wherein the mask is explicitly used to selectively allow for implantation of the first section while protecting masked sections from said implantation. As the straight / second section(s) reside atop portions of the base layer, the mask would similarly have been formed directly atop the second section in order to achieve the above taught masking. By the combination, in order to achieve the selective ion implantation of only the bending waveguide(s) and not the straight waveguide(s), the mask would only be formed on the straight waveguide(s) and not on any portion of the bending waveguide(s), thus an entire bending waveguide (a waveguide structure which possesses curvature/ bending radius, and distinguished from straight waveguides which do not) would be implanted to achieve the benefit of reduced loss.
Claim 5: Hassan further teaches implanting the first section (bending waveguide) comprises delivering silicon ions into the first section (See, for example, [0015], wherein group IV ions are explicitly taught as suitable ions for implantation, as there are only 5 elements in group IV, (C, SI, Ge, Sn, and Pb), any of each individually, such as Si, would be instantly envisioned given the elements therein are explicitly grouped according to similar chemical properties in the periodic table; (See MPEP 2131.2 III.: “A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)”).
Claim 6: Hassan further teaches wherein implanting the first section (bending waveguide) comprises delivering at least one of the following ion species into the first section: argon (See, for example, [0034]).
Claim 9: Hassan teaches a method for local waveguide tuning (See, for example, abstract, Fig 1-2), comprising:
depositing an optical device film (2) atop a base layer (3) , wherein the base layer is formed over a substrate (4) (See, for example, [0042], Fig 2a);
patterning the optical device film into a plurality of sections including (sections, zones, and or locations of interest) including a bending waveguide and a straight waveguide (See, for example, Fig 1, Fig 4, abstract, [0031], [0051], [0066-0069], wherein bending waveguide is interpreted as a waveguide structure possessing which possesses curvature/ bending radius whereas a straight waveguide does not);
patterning the optical device film into a plurality of sections, including (sections, zones, and or locations of interest) including a bending waveguide and a straight waveguide, wherein adjacent sections first and second sections of the plurality of sections are separated by a gap (such as a straight section of G1) and the closest bending section of G2) (see for example Fig 1, Fig 4 [0042], [0045] wherein waveguide layer 2 is taught to be etched following deposition to achieve the desired waveguide structure, further including rib type (as depicted in Fig 2), or alternatively strip type (presently not depicted), but which would have been further etched to the width of the strip waveguide, thus creating the gap therebetween the sections).
forming a mask (such structured hard mask 51) over a second section of the plurality of sections of the optical device film to protect the second section while the first section is implanted (See, for example, Fig 1, Fig 4, Fig 7, [0060-0062]). As described in the preceding paragraph, a strip type waveguide would have been further etched to the width of the strip waveguide, thus creating a structure wherein ribs of 20 existing between 51 and base 30 would not exist, thus at these areas of the second section(s) the mask would be formed directly atop the base layer.
and implanting a first section (2) of the plurality of sections of the optical device film to adjust a refractive index of the first section, without implanting a second section (such as (1)) of the plurality of sections of the optical device film (See, for example, Fig 1 and 2a and 2b, [0041]).
Hassan teaches the method above and further teaches providing various structured optical devices comprising a plurality of sections of waveguides including both bending waveguides and straight waveguides, and wherein ion implantation is provided to at least one section of said waveguides to aid in tailoring of refractive index (See, for example, Fig 1, Fig 4, abstract, rejection of claim 1 above). But Hassan does not explicitly teach wherein particularly the first section is a bending waveguide and the second section is a straight waveguide. Arai teaches a method of producing optical devices and particularly reducing radiation loss within optical devices comprising curved and straight waveguides (See, for example, abstract, [0002-0004]). Arai teaches wherein radiation loss is known in the art to occur at curved waveguides, and wherein such loss can be combatted by increasing the refractive index at curved waveguide sections relative to linear waveguide sections (See, for example, [0005-6]). Arai like Hassan similarly teaches wherein a higher refractive index can be predictably achieved by ion implantation (see, for example, [0006]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated selecting a first section as a bending waveguide and the second section as including a straight waveguide and selectively ion implanting the bending waveguide while similarly masking at least the straight waveguide segment(s) since such preferential ion implanting would predictably increase the refractive index of the curved waveguide(s) relative to the linear waveguides thus predictably resulting in lower propagation loss.
The combination of Hassan in view of Arai further teaches wherein the mask protects the second section while the first section is implanted (see, for example, the preceding paragraphs wherein the “second section” would align with and include straight waveguide(s), and wherein the mask is explicitly used to selectively allow for implantation of the first section (bending waveguide(s)) while protecting masked section from said implantation. As the straight / second section(s) reside atop portions of the base layer, the mask would similarly have been formed directly atop the second section in order to achieve the above taught masking. By the combination, in order to achieve the selective ion implantation of only the bending waveguide(s) and not the straight waveguide(s), the mask would only be formed on the straight waveguide(s) and not on any portion of the bending waveguide(s), thus an entire bending waveguide (a waveguide structure which possesses curvature/ bending radius, and distinguished from straight waveguide(s) which do not) would be implanted to achieve the benefit of reduced loss.
Claim 12: Hassan teaches the method of claim 9 above, and further teaches wherein implanting the bending waveguide comprises delivering ions into the bending waveguide at a temperature greater than 20° C (see, for example, [0046] wherein exemplary implantation conditions are provided, as no temperature is recited, standard ambient temperature, thus 298K (24.85oC), (as evidenced by {Chemistry} pg 6, section 2, SATP = 298K ) would be assumed.
Claim 13: Hassan further teaches wherein implanting the first section comprises delivering at least one of the following ion species into the bending waveguide: silicon or argon (See, for example, [0034] and rejection of claims 5-6, and 9 above).
Claim 16. Refer to figures 1, and 4, of Hassan for demonstrating a variety of waveguide configurations comprising both straight and bending waveguide sections separated by gaps as well as the rejections of claims 1 and 9 over Hassan in view of Arai above.
Claim 19: Hassan in view of Arai teaches the method of claim 16 above, Hassan further teaches wherein implanting the bending waveguide section comprises delivering at least one of the following ion species into the first section: silicon or argon (See, for example, [0034] and rejection of claims 5-6, and 9 above; further by combination with Arai the first section corresponds to the bending waveguide section).
Claim(s) 4, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan in view of Arai as applied to claims 1 and 9 above and further in view of Chandrappan et al (CN 108138310; citation to machine translation provided herein; hereafter Chandrappan).
Claims 4, 12, and 18: Hassan in view of Arai teaches the method of claims 1 and 9 above, but are silent as to the temperature during implantation, so it does not explicitly teach implanting the bending waveguide comprises delivering ions into the bending waveguide at a temperature greater than 20oC, further greater than 100° C. Chandrappan is directed to a method of ion implantation, further optical implantation of waveguides and silicon based material (See, for example, pg 2, “technical field” section). Chandrappan further teaches wherein heating of the substrate during ion implantation can increase the activation energy to facilitate ion implantation into the substrate (pg 5 last paragraph). Chandrappan further teaches the temperature of heating is dependent on the substrate material, and generally is heated to less than but not more than the softening point or crystallization temperature, particularly for inorganic glasses it has taught ranges of 350oC to 1000oC and 200oC to 400oC, and for silicon between 400oC and 1000oC (see, for example, pg5 starting at last paragraph through third to last paragraph of pg 6). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated that implanting the first section comprises delivering ions into the bending waveguide at a temperature greater than 100° C, such as between 400oC and 1000oC, (as the substrate of Hassan is silicon (see, for example, [0008]), as such elevated temperature would predictably increase the activation energy to facilitate ion implantation into the substrate.
Claim(s) 5, 7-8, 14-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan in view of Arai as applied to claims 1 and 9 above and further in view of Lee et al (US 2003/0012493; hereafter Lee).
Claims 7 and 14: Hassan in view of Arai teaches the method of claims 1 and 9 above, and further provides an exemplary embodiment wherein depositing the optical device film atop the base layer comprises depositing a silicon film (2) directly atop an upper surface of the base layer (silicon oxide, 3). Hassan does not explicitly teach wherein optical device film instead comprises depositing silicon nitride. Lee teaches a method of forming integrated optical devices (See, for example, abstract). Lee further teaches deposition of waveguide films of silicon directly on base layers of silicon oxide on silicon (See, for example, [0099-0100]). Lee further teaches wherein either silicon or silicon nitride can predictably serve as deposited waveguide material on the SiO2 / Si substructure (See, for example, [0100], Fig 16-17). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated depositing the optical device film atop the base layer comprises depositing a silicon nitride film directly atop an upper surface of the base layer (silicon oxide) on the substrate (silicon) since Lee has demonstrate that silicon and silicon nitride both predictably perform as waveguides upon such structure and since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).
Claims 8 and 15: Hassan in view of Arai and Lee teach the method of claims 7 and 15 above, and Hassan further teaches wherein patterning the optical device film into the plurality of sections comprises removing one or more sections of the optical device film selective to the upper surface of the base layer (see, for example, Fig 2 and 4, [0042], [0045] wherein waveguide layer 2 is taught to be etched following deposition to achieve the desired waveguide structure, further including rib type (as depicted in Fig 2), or alternatively strip type, which would have been further etched to the width of the strip waveguide, so the ribs would have been removed).
Claim 5: Hassan in view of Arai and Lee teaches the method of claims 7-8 and 14-15 above, and Hassan further teaches group IV ions are explicitly taught as suitable ions for implantation (there are only 5 elements in group IV, (C, SI, Ge, Sn, and Pb)) (See, for example, [0015]). If such a teaching would not already anticipate selection of Si, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Si as the ion for implantation since given the 5 elements within Group IV are explicitly grouped according to similar chemical properties in the periodic table, selection of any one therein would have provided predictable results and since “A reference disclosure can anticipate (render obvious) a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)”) MPEP 2131.2 III, and a reasonable expectation of success exists from choosing the specific taught species from explicitly taught lists. Further when the species is clearly named, the species claim is anticipated (rendered obvious) no matter how many other species are additionally named. Ex parte A 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
Claim 20: refer to the rejection of claim 16 over Hassan in view of Arai above and the rejection of claim 7-8 and 14-15 over Hassan in view of Arai and Lee above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the claimed invention differs from Hassan, which discloses forming an encapsulation / masking layer over multiple waveguides, and then removing just a portion of the mask from directly over one of the waveguides” ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As presently claimed, the argued limitation begins as “forming a mask directly atop the straight waveguide…without forming the mask over any portion of the bending waveguide”. Applicant’s position that the entire initially deposited encapsulation layer 50 equates to the claimed “mask” is not accepted by the Examiner. The examiner instead asserts that the initially applied layer 50 is not “the mask” yet, but rather is an intermediate structure, wherein “the mask” is instead interpreted as the body once patterning has been completed. As such, the examiner instead asserts that “the mask” is more in line with feature 51 of Fig 7(c), the “forming” of its ultimate shape and overall structure is actually achieved upon completion of the patterned etching process; thus “forming a mask” of such structure per the combination of Hassan in view of at least Arai (as described in the rejections above) would include forming the mask directly atop the straight waveguide and directly atop the base layer without forming the mask over any portion of the bending waveguide.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (at pg 8: “Hassan encapsulates multiple waveguides and then removes portions of the encapsulation to expose a small section of one waveguide for implantation, thus forming the waveguide with sections of both low refractive index and high refractive index. This differs from the claimed invention, in which a mask is formed directly atop the straight waveguide without forming the mask over any portion of the bending waveguide, thus permitting adjustment of a refractive index of the entire bending waveguide”), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner notes that exemplary embodiments of Hassan, such as Fig 1 demonstrate constructs that comprise a plurality of waveguide structures both in series (such as within span of G1; both a plurality of structures of straight waveguide(s) and bending waveguide(s) are present end to end) and in parallel orientation (such as those within G1 vs those within G2). Thus any such individual bending waveguide within the overall construct can be interpreted as an “entire bending waveguide”. The rejection is via the combination of Hassan in view of Arai, not Hassan alone. Arai has demonstrated wherein radiation loss is known in the art to occur at curved waveguides, and wherein such loss can be combatted by increasing the refractive index at curved waveguide(s) relative to straight waveguide(s). Thus by combination with Arai (as described in the rejection above), in order to achieve the selective ion implantation of only the bending waveguide(s) and not the straight waveguide(s), the mask would only be formed on the straight waveguide(s) and not on any portion of the bending waveguide(s), thus an entire bending waveguide (a waveguide structure which possesses curvature/ bending radius, and distinguished from straight waveguide(s) which do not) would be implanted to in order achieve the benefit of reduced loss. Further still, given the serial nature of waveguide alignment, “the entire bending waveguide” can be interpreted as any serial structure of waveguide that has received implantation / refractive index adjustment which possesses curvature/ bending radius.
As to the remaining dependent claims they remain rejected as no additional separate arguments are provided.
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 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 NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 PM.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights