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 with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims not specifically discussed are rejected because they include the indefinite language of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites that the buffer layers are configured with the same material. It is unclear as to what it means to be configured with the same material. The specification does not provide any insight in to what this could mean.
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.
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, 2 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahadori et al (US 2022/0026634 A1) in view of Sugiyama (US 11,892,716 B2).
Bahadori teaches:
1. An optical waveguide device (100, Fig. 1) comprising:
an optical waveguide substrate (104) on which an optical waveguide (part of 104) is formed;
a reinforcing substrate (Substrate) disposed under the optical waveguide substrate (104);
a lower buffer layer (Buried Oxide) disposed between the optical waveguide substrate (104) and the reinforcing substrate (Substrate) to join both of the optical waveguide substrate (104) and the reinforcing substrate (Substrate); and
an upper buffer layer (PECVD Oxide, SiO2 Bump) disposed on an upper side of the optical waveguide substrate (104) in contact with the optical waveguide substrate (104),
wherein a thickness of the optical waveguide substrate (104) is set to 1 µm or lower (P0106), and in the case where the claimed ranges ''overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art'' a prima facie case of obviousness exists. ln re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
the upper buffer layer (PECVD Oxide, SiO2 Bump) and the lower buffer layer (Buried Oxide) are configured with the same material (SiO2, P0114, 0164),
a thickness of the upper buffer layer (PECVD Oxide, SiO2 Bump) is formed to be smaller than a thickness of the lower buffer layer (Buried Oxide) (P0106, see dimensions in Fig. 1A).
2. The optical waveguide device according to claim 1, wherein the thickness of the lower buffer layer is set within a range of 1 µm to 10 µm (see Fig. 1A, 2.5 µm), and
the thickness of the upper buffer layer is set within a range of 0.1 µm to 5 µm (see Fig. 1A, 0.7 µm).
In the case where the claimed ranges ''overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art'' a prima facie case of obviousness exists. ln re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
5. The optical waveguide device according claim 1, wherein refractive indices of the upper buffer layer and the lower buffer layer are lower than a refractive index of the optical waveguide substrate (this is required for waveguiding in the core, index values in P0118-0119/Fig. 7A verses silicon oxide).
Bahadori does not teach expressly the density of the lower buffer layer is higher than density of the upper buffer layer.
Sugiyama teaches an optical waveguide (Fig. 3) with a lower buffer layer (102) and an upper buffer layer (105) wherein the resistance of the lower buffer layer (102) can be increased by increasing the film density of the lower buffer layer (C6 L30-43).
Bahadori and Sugiyama are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical waveguide devices.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical waveguide device of Bahadori to increase the density of the lower buffer layer as taught by Sugiyama so the lower buffer layer has a greater density than the upper buffer layers (since both layers are silicon oxide).
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the influence of the voltage drop in the buffer layers (Sugiyama, C6 L43-53).
Bahadori does not teach:
6. The optical waveguide device according to claim 1, wherein electrical resistivity of the upper buffer layer and the lower buffer layer is 108Ωcm or higher and 1016Ωcm or lower.
7. An optical modulation device, comprising: the optical waveguide device according to claim 1; a case accommodating the optical waveguide device; and an optical fiber through which a light wave is input into the optical waveguide or output from the optical waveguide.
Sugiyama teaches how the electrical resistivity of the buffer layers can be adjusted as needed (C6 L3-17).
Sugiyama also teaches a case (1, Fig. 7) accommodating the optical waveguide device (2); and
an optical fiber (6, 7) through which a light wave is output (see arrow) from the optical waveguide (11), a modulation electrode (120) for modulating a light wave propagating through the optical waveguide (11), and an electronic circuit (5/9) that amplifies a modulation signal to be input into the modulation electrode of the optical waveguide device(2) (C9 L21-32) is provided inside the case (1) and an electronic circuit (5/9) that outputs a modulation signal causing the optical modulation device to perform a modulation operation (C9 L1-20).
Bahadori and Sugiyama do not state the exact range of electrical resistivity of the upper buffer layer and the lower buffer layer is 108 Ωcm or higher and 1016 Ωcm or lower. As noted Sugiyama also teaches how the electrical resistivity of the buffer layers can be adjusted as needed (C6 L3-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to try an electrical resistivity of the upper buffer layer and the lower buffer layer is 108 Ωcm or higher and 1016 Ωcm or lower, since it has been held that “[W]here 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). “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Sugiyama teaches the need to adjust the resistivity of the layers so as to concentrate the electric field into the waveguide more efficiently (C6 L17-29).
Bahadori further teaches:
8. The optical modulation device according to claim 7,
wherein the optical waveguide device (100) includes a modulation electrode (Electrode) for modulating a light wave propagating through the optical waveguide (104), and
an electronic circuit that amplifies a modulation signal to be input into the modulation electrode of the optical waveguide device (P0107).
9. An optical transmission apparatus comprising:
the optical modulation device according to claim 7; and
an electronic circuit that outputs a modulation signal causing the optical modulation device to perform a modulation operation (not shown, P0107, 0110).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahadori and Sugiyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chowdhury et al (US 2004/0136634 A1).
Bahadori and Sugiyama teach the optical waveguide device previously discussed.
Bahadori and Sugiyama does not teach expressly:
The optical waveguide device according to claim 1, wherein the upper buffer layer and the lower buffer layer are transparent insulating films including silicon oxide, magnesium fluoride, calcium fluoride, a mixture of silicon oxide and an oxide of one or more elements selected from metal elements of groups 3 to 8, group 1 b, and group 2b in a periodic table and semiconductor elements except silicon, or an oxide of silicon and one or more elements selected from the metal elements and the semiconductor elements.
Chowdhury teaches an optical waveguide device (Fig. 3c) comprising:
an optical waveguide substrate (14) on which an optical waveguide (ridges of 14) is formed;
a reinforcing substrate (10) disposed under the optical waveguide substrate (14);
a lower buffer layer (15B) disposed between the optical waveguide substrate (14) and the reinforcing substrate (10) to join both of the optical waveguide substrate (14) and the reinforcing substrate (10); and
an upper buffer layer (15A) disposed on an upper side of the optical waveguide substrate (14) in contact with the optical waveguide substrate (14), wherein
the upper buffer layer and the lower buffer layer are transparent insulating films including silicon oxide with or without group 3 to 8 and 1b and 2b elements (P0046).
Bahadori, Sugiyama and Chowdhury are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical waveguide devices.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the material of the buffer layers of Bahadori and Sugiyama to use the ones taught by Chowdhury.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow a user to the desired impact to the effective dielectric constant for modulating the device (Chowdhury, P0046).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874