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 .
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 2-5, 10-11, 13-19 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.
Regarding claim 4, in claim 4, the first mention of “the diffraction grating” should have “additional” before it to have proper antecedent basis. Furthermore, the wording of claim 4 (and claim 13) needs to be further clarified at least to provide clarity that the additional diffraction grating is not a part of, or merely a projection of, the coupling diffraction grating.
A suggestion to overcome this 112 rejection of claim 4 is as follows:
--wherein the additional diffraction grating on the surface of the semiconductor device is a projection with respect to the coupling diffraction grating within the surface of the semiconductor device.--
Furthermore, each of claims 2-3, 5 must have “additional” before “diffraction grating” for proper antecedent basis. Also, claim 10 line 6 must have “additional” before “diffraction grating” for proper antecedent basis.
Similarly, a suggestion to overcome this 112 rejection of claim 13 (with respect to claim 13 line 9) is as follows:
--being a projection with respect to the coupling diffraction grating; and--.
If Applicant desires to discuss alternative language to properly overcome the 112 rejection, please contact the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meister et al. (US 20190207368; “Meister”).
Regarding claim 1, Meister discloses (the whole document): an optical module ("component 1 ", par.53; fig.1) comprising an emitter ("semiconductor laser amplifier 200", par.53; fig.1) and a semiconductor device ("photonic integrated chip 100", par.53; fig.1 ), ("silicon substrate" 110, par.54; fig.1 ), ("silicon layer 122"; par.56; fig.1 ), the emitter being attached to the semiconductor device (via "contact pads K", par.73; fig.1) and being separated from the semiconductor device by a gap (see fig.1 ), wherein the semiconductor device comprises a waveguide ("first and second optical waveguide 130a and 130b", par.55; figs.1,2) and a diffraction grating ("first and second grating coupler 135a and 135b", par.55; figs.1,2) located within semiconductor of the semiconductor device ("the grating couplers 135a and 135b are integrated in the silicon layer 122", par.56; figs.1,2), the diffraction grating being a coupling diffraction grating ("first and second grating coupler 135a and 135b", par.55) configured to couple light emitted from the emitter into the waveguide ("the second grating coupler 135b
couples the amplified radiation into the second integrated optical waveguide 130b", par. 85; figs.1,2), and wherein the semiconductor device further comprises an additional diffraction
grating ("lenses 140a and 140b", par.58; figs.1,2), ("lens 600", par.102; figs. 10, 11) which is provided on a surface of the semiconductor device which faces the emitter ("the lenses 140a and 140b are integrated in the topmost material layer 124", par.58; figs.1,2), ("the lens 600 comprises elevated rings 610, which are preferably formed by steps in the material layer 124", par.103; figs.1, 10, 11 ), ("the lens 600 thus has a certain similarity to a Fresnel lens", par.102), (the grating structure illustrated in fig.11 operates by the principle of diffraction as opposed to by the principle of refraction because all the individually protruding elements (see rings 610, fig.11; par.104) have the same height. A Fresnel lens would be comprised of curved surfaces.).
Thus claim 1 is met.
Regarding claim 3 see Meister, from fig.1 can see that the two gratings 135a and 140a {as well as 135b and 140b} are aligned). Thus claim 3 is met
Regarding claim 4, Meister ¶s 0102-0104 states the lens 600 may be used for elements 140a, 140b and has projection rings which can be said to be a projection of the coupling diffraction grating. Thus claim 4 is met.
Regarding claim 7, emitter 200 is a semiconductor laser amplifier. Thus claim 7 is met.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meister et al. (US 20190207368; “Meister”).
Regarding claim 13, Meister discloses a method of forming an optical module ("component 1 ", par.53; fig.1) comprising: providing a layer of a second semiconductor material ("silicon layer 122", par. 56; fig.1) on top of a layer of a first semiconductor material ("first ... layer 121 ", par.56; fig.1 ); using lithography to etch a pattern into the second semiconductor material (implicit from "the grating couplers 135a and 135b are integrated in the silicon layer 122", par.56; figs.1,2), the pattern comprising a coupling diffraction grating ("first and second grating coupler 135a and 135b", par.55) and a waveguide ("first and second optical waveguide 130a and 130b", par.55; figs.1,2); ("the optical waveguides 130a and 130b can be for example so-called SOI rib or strip waveguides, wherein the optical radiation is guided in the silicon layer 122", par.56; figs.1,2), providing a further semiconductor material ("topmost material layer 124", par. 58) on top of the diffraction grating and waveguide, wherein an additional diffraction grating is formed on an upper surface of the first semiconductor surface, ("lenses 140a and 140b", par.58; figs.1,2), ("lens 600", par.102; figs.10, 11) ("the lenses 140a and 140b are integrated in the topmost material layer 124", par.58; figs.1,2), ("the lens 600 comprises elevated rings 610, which are preferably formed by steps in the material layer 124", par.103; figs.1, 10, 11 ), attaching an emitter to the semiconductor device ("semiconductor laser amplifier 200", par.53; fig.1 ), the emitter being separated from the semiconductor device by a gap (implicit, see figs.1,2). Further, Meister ¶s 0102-0104 states the lens 600 may be used for elements 140a, 140b and has projection rings which can be said to be a projection of the coupling diffraction grating.
Meister differs regarding providing a further semiconductor material comprises using a deposition process to provide more of the first semiconductor material. These differences, in the absence of further technical features, appear to be examples of one of the several straightforward possibilities from which the skilled person would select, in accordance with circumstances, without the exercise of inventive skill, in order to solve the problem posed and would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Thus the subject matter of independent method claim 13 is rejected.
Further, regarding claim 16, from fig.1 can see that the two gratings 135a and 140a are aligned.
Therefore claim 16 is not inventive.
With respect to claim 12, Meister, which discloses that the LED/laser (150, fig.1; par.59). So, the LED/laser 150 can be viewed as the claimed further “at least one electro-optic device”.
Also, the photodetector {PD} (145, fig.1; par. 55) can be considered a claimed “further integrated circuit” ("the photodetector 145 can be integrated in modified sections of the silicon layer 122", par.57; fig.1 ).
The difference in the claim 12 and Meister is Meister does not explicitly state plural “further integrated circuits”.
However, it was well-known for a PD to be associated with processing circuitry that is also an integrated circuit. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the PD to be associated with processing circuitry that is also an integrated circuit at least for the purpose of processing that which is detected by the PD and thus, have further integrated circuits.
Thus claim 12 is rejected.
With respect to claims 5, 6, 17 and 18 the vertical and sloped shapes of
raised diffraction gratings well known to the skilled person.
Regarding claim 9, Meister teaches he optical module of claim 1 (see above).
Meister does not explicitly state the emitter is configured to emit infrared light.
However, it was well-known for the emitter to be configured to emit infrared light. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the emitter to emit infrared light at least for the purpose of providing a commonly used wavelength for optical communications.
Thus claim 9 is rejected.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meister et al. (US 20190207368; “Meister”) as applied to claims 1 and/or 7 above, with obviousness evidenced by {OEB} Dabos et al. ["Ultra-low loss fully-etched grating couplers for perfectly vertical coupling compatible with DUV lithography tools," Proc. SPIE 9752, Silicon Photonics Xl, 975212 (14 March 2016), pp. 975212-1 to 975212-7; “Dabos”; already of record].
Regarding claim 8, Meister teaches he optical module of claim 7 (see above).
Meister does not explicitly state wherein the emitter is a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL).
However, it was well-known to make the emitter to be a VCSEL at least as evidenced by Dabos (e.g., Dabos figs.2a,4a; ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the emitter to be a VCSEL at least for the purpose of providing a commonly used light source that emits vertically.
Thus claim 8 is rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10-11, 14-15, 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Michael Mooney whose telephone number is 571-272-2422. The examiner can normally be reached during weekdays, M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-2397. 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 Center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For checking the filing status of an application, please refer to <https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application>.
/MICHAEL P MOONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874