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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Erickson et al (US 2021/0302715 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Erickson discloses (Fig. 2B; Abstract; para. 0018 – 0027) an apparatus 200b comprising:
a glass substrate 210a,210b (“The carriers 210 can be constructed of various bulk materials (e.g., SiO2, glass) in which the various waveguides, waveguide interfaces 120, waveguide fannings 130, optics 140, and mirrors 150 are formed to define the respective light paths” at para. 0030) comprising:
a bulk layer 210a;
a cladding layer 210b adjacent the bulk layer 210a;
a first set of one or more waveguides 170b (para. 0021), wherein the cladding layer 210b provides at least part of a cladding (with a lower refractive index) for the first set of one or more waveguides 170b (waveguide cores with a refractive index higher than that of the cladding, as needed for light confinement and waveguiding); and
a second set of one or more waveguides 170a (waveguide cores) defined in the bulk layer 210a (ibid).
Regarding claim 19, Erickson teaches that individual waveguides of the second set of one or more waveguides 170a have a core (of higher refractive index) and a cladding (of lower refractive index), wherein the second set of one or more waveguides 170a are formed as direct-write waveguides by a laser beam in which case the core and the cladding for individual waveguides of the second set of one or more waveguides 170a are the same material (glass) (“In some embodiments, at least some of the waveguides are defined via laser patterning of a substrate material, in which a laser precisely imparts a three-dimensional pattern into the material to control the relative refractive indices of patterned and non-patterned (or exposed versus non-exposed) portions of the matrix material” at para. 0021).
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.
Claim 1, 4, 5, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson.
Regarding claim 1, Erickson discloses (Fig. 2B; Abstract; para. 0018 – 0027) an apparatus 200b comprising (see annotated Fig. 2B below):
a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) die 210a comprising a first set of one or more waveguides 170a (“The carriers 210 can be constructed of various bulk materials (e.g., SiO2, glass) in which the various waveguides, waveguide interfaces 120, waveguide fannings 130, optics 140, and mirrors 150 are formed to define the respective light paths” at para. 0030); and
a glass substrate 210b (para. 0030) comprising:
a second set of one or more waveguides 170b, wherein individual waveguides of the second set of one or more waveguides 170b are direct-write waveguides (“In some embodiments, at least some of the waveguides are defined via laser patterning of a substrate material, in which a laser precisely imparts a three-dimensional pattern into the material to control the relative refractive indices of patterned and non-patterned (or exposed versus non-exposed) portions of the matrix material. In such embodiments, the laser shines a high intensity light into the material of the optical component (e.g., a SiO2 based material) to break chemical bonds within the material to alter the light-transmission properties thereof to define one or more waveguides” at para. 0021, emphasis added); and
a third set of one or more waveguides (formed within 220), wherein individual waveguides of the third set of one or more waveguides have a cladding (material surrounding the channel waveguide cores), wherein the cladding of individual waveguides of the third set of one or more waveguides can be a different material from the corresponding waveguide (“In various embodiments, at least some of the waveguides are defined through a fabrication process that selectively deposits and removes different materials (e.g., by vapor deposition and etching) to produce a physical structure for the waveguide having the desired dimensions and optical properties” at para. 0021, emphasis added),
wherein individual waveguides of the second set of one or more waveguides 170b are coupled (via mirrors 150a,150b) to individual waveguides of the first set of one or more waveguides 170a and coupled (by evanescent coupling; para. 035) to individual waveguides of the third set of one or more waveguides.
While Erickson does not specify suitable/workable materials of the substrate 220, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that it can be a glass substrate, in full similarity to the glass substrate 210a, so as to match coefficients of thermal expansion (as mentioned at para. 0031) and thereby reduce stress/stress at the interface between the substrates 210b,220 caused by variation of temperature. Hence, Erickson renders obvious an embodiment wherein both the substrate 210b and the substrate 220 are made of glass and parts of a glass substrate.
PNG
media_image1.png
392
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Erickson.
In light of the foregoing analysis, Erickson teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Erickson considers (para. 0022) that individual waveguides of the third set of one or more waveguides can have SiN waveguide cores and, thus, comprise silicon and nitrogen.
Regarding claim 5, Erickson considers (para. 0021) that individual waveguides of the second set of one or more waveguides can be formed in glass (SiO2) comprise silicon and oxygen.
Regarding claim 20, Erickson teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations, as detailed above for claim 1, by remapping the third set of waveguides onto the first set of waveguides and vice versa.
Claims 2 and 6 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson in view of Brusberg (US 2018/0217326 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Erickson considers that the third set of one or more waveguides is optically coupled to another device for bidirectional communication (“a light output 160, where an optical signal is output from the periscope assembly 100 to a second external device … the light path may be bi-directional or oriented in reverse to the described signal pathway (i.e., receiving optical signals at the light output 160 and outputting optical signals at the light input 110)” at para. 0018). While Erickson generally renders obvious that the optical device can have a structure similar/identical to that of the apparatus in Fig. 2B, but does not illustrate such arrangement. However, Brusberg discloses (Fig. 10C; para. 0092) a pair of photonic integrated circuits (PICs) 320 that are optically coupled to each other via micromirrors 390 (para. 0091) and glass waveguides 61 formed (e.g., by ion exchange of a glass substrate, the latter being a cladding for an ion-exchanged core; para. 0051) in a substrate 10 (as detailed in Figs. 2A – 2C; para. 0049 – 52).
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 apparatus in Fig. 2B of Erickson can be optically coupled to a second PIC (via the third set of waveguides), as generally rendered obvious by Erickson and expressly taught/illustrated by Brusberg.
The Erickson – Brusberg combination considers a pair of apparatuses that have a similar/identical structures and are optically coupled to each other via the third set of waveguides. Such arrangement comprises a second PIC die, the second PIC die comprising a fourth set of one or more waveguides, wherein the glass substrate comprises a fifth set of one or more waveguides, wherein individual waveguides of the fifth set of one or more waveguides are coupled to individual waveguides of the fourth set of one or more waveguides and coupled to individual waveguides of the third set of one or more waveguides, wherein the second, third, and fifth sets of one or more waveguides in the glass substrate couple the first set of one or more waveguides to the fourth set of one or more waveguides.
Regarding claim 6, the Erickson – Brusberg combination renders obvious that, at a coupling interface, the first set of one or more waveguides and the second set of one or more waveguides are arranged in a two-dimensional multirow interconnect interface (according to Figs. 2A – 2C and 10D of Brusberg).
Regarding claim 7, the Erickson – Brusberg combination considers that the third set of one or more waveguides (corresponding to waveguides 61 in Fig. 10D) are arranged in two or more (vertically stacked) layers in the glass substrate 10.
Alternatively, the Examiner takes official notice that vertically-stacked directional couplers comprising 3 or more waveguides are well known in the art. Such designs would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a suitable/workable design choice for providing a particular path of optical routing through the glass substrate.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, the Erickson – Brusberg combination considers one or more optical components, e.g., such passive optical components as a lens or a filter (para. 0025 and claim 14 of Erickson) and/or an optical input/output connector 80 in Fig. 10D of Brusberg (para. 0053) adjacent the glass substrate coupled to the third set of one or more waveguides (“one of the first waveguide, the second waveguide, and the third waveguide includes an optic selected from a group of optical devices consisting of: a lens …” in claim 14 of Erickson).
Regarding claim 9, the Erickson – Brusberg combination renders obvious that the one or more optical components can comprise one or more active optical components (e.g., “one of the first waveguide, the second waveguide, and the third waveguide includes an optic selected from a group of optical devices consisting of: an optical amplifier; a laser; a phase shifter” in claim 14 of Erickson).
Regarding claim 11, the Erickson – Brusberg combination considers that the one or more passive optical components comprise a spectral filter (“one of the first waveguide, the second waveguide, and the third waveguide includes an optic selected from a group of optical devices consisting of: … a highpass filter; a lowpass filter; a bandpass filter; …” in claim 14 of Erickson). The Examiner takes official notice that a cyclical arrayed waveguide grating is a spectral filter type that is well known in the art. Such type of spectral filter would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and can provide a large number of optical inputs/outputs with high spectral resolution.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson in view of Haase et al (US 2021/0103098 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Erickson teaches (Fig. 2B) that the disclosed apparatus further comprises a first set of one or more micromirrors 150a and a second set of micromirrors 150b (para. 0019), wherein individual micromirrors of the first set of one or more micromirrors 150a are to direct light towards one of the second set of micromirrors 150b, wherein individual micromirrors of the second set of one or more micromirrors are to direct light from one of the first set of one or more micromirrors 150a into one of the second set of one or more waveguides 170b.
While Erickson illustrates flat reflecting surfaces of the micromirrors 150a,150b and does not expressly teach curves surface for collimation and focusing, Haase discloses (Figs. 1 – 3; Abstract; para. 0013 – 0037) an apparatus comprising a first (upper) micromirror 134 and a second (lower) micromirror 134, wherein the first (upper) micromirror 134 and the second (lower) micromirror 134 each have a curved surface for collimation or focusing. As shown in Fig. 3A, the first (upper) micromirror 134 is to collimate (divergent) light 140 from a first waveguide/fiber 120 and direct the collimated light 150 towards the second (lower) micromirror 134, and the second (lower) micromirror 134 is to focus light from the first (upper) micromirror 134 into a second waveguide 120’.
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 first set of micromirrors 150a and the second set of micromirrors 150b in Erickson can each have curved surface configured to provide collimation or focusing and enable improved/high coupling efficiency between the first waveguide 170a and the second waveguide 170b.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson in view of Brusberg, and further in view of Xie (US 2019/0137706 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Erickson states (para. 0025 and claim 14) that the PIC die can comprise a laser or a phase shifter, but does not expressly teach that the PIC die can be comprised in an optoelectronic module with an integrated circuit (EIC) die mated to the PIC die. However, Xie discloses (Fig. 6; para. 0079 – 0085) an optoelectronic module comprising a PIC die 2320 (para. 0080) and an EIC die 2324 (para. 0084), wherein the EIC die is mated (electrically coupled) to the PIC die 2320 via a circuit board 2302 and an interposer 2304, the latter comprising glass (para. 0083). 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 PIC die of the apparatus of the Erickson – Brusberg combination can be mated to an EIC, as described by Xie, so that optoelectronic elements (a laser or a phase shifter) of the PIC can receiving driving/controlling electrical signals from the mated EIC.
Regarding claim 13, the Erickson – Brusberg – Xie combination considers that the glass substrate can be a glass interposer (corresponding to 2304 in Fig. 6 of Xie) for the integrated circuit package, wherein the glass substrate comprises a plurality of through-glass vias 2308,2310 (para. 0083 of Xie).
Claims 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson in view of “Flexible and low-cost fabrication of optical waveguides by UV laser resist-mask writing” by Bonneville et al, Optical Material Express, vol. 9, No. 4/1, 2019 (hereinafter Bonneville).
Regarding claim 14, as detailed above for claim 1, Erickson discloses an apparatus comprising (see annotated fig. 2B provided above for claim 1):
a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) die 210a comprising a first set of one or more waveguides 170a;
a glass substrate 210b,220 comprising (as detailed above for claim 1):
a second set of one or more waveguides 170b,; and
a third set of one or more waveguides (within 220),
wherein individual waveguides of the second set of one or more waveguides 170b are coupled (by the mirrors 150,150b) to individual waveguides of the first set of one or more waveguides 170a and coupled to individual waveguides of the third set of one or more waveguides (within 220).
Erickson considers that the second set of one or more waveguides 170b can be direct-write waveguides formed by laser writing in glass (para. 0021), while third set of one or more waveguides (within 220) can be SiN waveguide cores in a glass cladding (para. 0022). While Erickson does not expressly state relationships between the refractive indices of direct-write waveguides in glass and SiN waveguides in glass, Bonneville describes (Abstract; Section 1) that direct-write waveguides are low refractive-index contrast waveguides, whereas SiN waveguides in glass have a high refractive index contrast which is 1.9 (index of Si3N4) – 1.45 (index of glass) = 0.45.
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 second set of one or more waveguides (direct-write) have a difference (refractive index contrast) between a core index of refraction and a cladding index of refraction much smaller (e.g., 0.01; it is zero at zero writing intensity) than that (0.45) of third set of one or more waveguides (SiN waveguides in glass), as generally rendered obvious by Erickson and expressly stated by Bonneville.
Regarding claim 16, while Erickson cites, by way of example but not limitation, direct-write waveguide in glass (para. 0021), the Examiner takes official notice that direct-write waveguide in polymers are also well known in the art. Such material would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a suitable/workable material choice that has a lower writing power compared to glass.
Regarding claim 17, Erickson renders obvious that, if the height difference between the first set of waveguides 170a and the second set of 170b is relatively small (smaller than the height of both mirrors 150a,150b), only one of the mirrors 1250a,150b can be used (e.g., only the lower mirror 150b) in which case the first set of one or more waveguides 170a are butt-coupled to individual waveguides of the second set of one or more waveguides 170b.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson in view of Bonneville, and further in view of Brusberg.
Regarding claim 15, the teachings of Erickson, Bonneville, and Brusberg combine (see the arguments and motivation for combining, as provided above for claims 14 and 3) to teach expressly or render obvious all of the recited limitations, an optical connector 80 for an optical fiber is defined at an edge of the glass substrate 10 (Figs. 2C and 8 of Brusberg; para. 0083).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0049890 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