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 Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claims 1,4,17 and 20. Claims 2 and 3 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that a combination of Novack, Patel, Galli and Lestra to anticipate the amended limitations of claim 1 is itself evidence of non-obviousness, stating “Such a combination of hour references to arrive at the claimed invention is itself evidence of non-obviousness”. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Applicant further states that modifying Novack with Galli’s teaching of a thickness differential would contradict Novack’s fundamental operating principle. Examiner notes that the embodiment relied upon of Novack Fig. 2 and cited with Novack paragraphs [0116] and [0122] as stated on pages 3 and 4 of the remarks filed 08/06/2026 is not the embodiment of Novack that is relied upon for the rejection of claim 1. The embodiment shown in Fig. 5B of Novack is the embodiment relied upon for the rejection of claim 1. The embodiment shown in Fig. 5B is separate from the tapered waveguide embodiment disclosed in the cited paragraphs of [0116 and 0122] of Novack. Fig. 5B is not disclosed to have tapered structures present in the disclosed waveguides and therefore the structure of Novack Fig. 5B is not contradicted by the teachings of Galli.
Similarly, Applicant notes that modifying Novack’s edge coupler with the structure of Lestra would be similarly illogical. Applicant again cites paragraph [0116] referring to the tapered waveguide structure shown in Fig. 2A. As stated above, this embodiment of Novack is separate from the embodiment shown in Fig. 5B that is relied upon for the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, since the disclosure of tapering waveguides is absent from the embodiment of Fig. 5B of Novack, the teachings of Lestra would not defeat the purpose of Novack’s design.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant states that the introduction of Collins in the rejection of claim 17 renders the combination even more untenable, remarking that Collins is directed to a different technical problem and solution. Examiner notes that Fig. 7 of Collins as relied upon for the rejection of claim 17 discloses a silicon device [hybrid laser 700 of Collins Fig. 7] which is used as a modification of the silicon device layer [550] of Novack Fig. 5B. In which both the silicon device layer [550] of Novack Fig. 5B and the hybrid laser [700] of Collins Fig. 7 are used to emit light to waveguide structures.
Regarding the remarks that Collins does not teach a structure for a single-device longitudinal edge coupler as claimed, Collins is not relied upon for the limitations directed to an edge coupler as claimed. The embodiment of Collins Fig. 7 is relied upon as a modification of the silicon device layer [550] of Novack Fig. 5B. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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).
Further, Collins is not relied upon for the newly amended limitations regarding the adiabatic coupling between the first and second waveguides.
The remarks above in regard to the arguments against the rejections of claims 1 and 17 also applies to the arguments against the rejection of claim 20 as disclosed on pages 5 and 6 of the Remarks filed 08/06/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/06/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 05/14/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings regarding the limitation of “the first dielectric waveguide comprises a plurality of segments, each segment increasing in width as it extends in the longitudinal direction” has been withdrawn in light of the amendments made to claim 4.
The previous objection to the drawings regarding the limitations of “a semiconductor optical amplifier” as recited in claims 11 and 12 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments made to the specification.
Examiner notes the reply filed 08/06/2026 fails to acknowledge the objections to the drawings regarding the claimed subject matter of “a lens optically coupled to the edge coupler in the longitudinal direction” as recited in claim 15 and “an optical fiber optically coupled to the edge coupler in the longitudinal direction” as recited in claim 16. These objections are provided again in the instant Office Action below:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a lens optically coupled to the edge coupler in the longitudinal direction to receive the light outcoupled by the edge coupler” as recited in claim 15 and “an optical fiber optically coupled to the edge coupler in the longitudinal direction to receive the light outcoupled by the edge coupler” as recited in claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Overall, Examiner notes that claims 15 and 16 contain features not shown in the drawings filed 10/13/2023.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to the specification filed 08/06/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) has been withdrawn in light of the amendments made to claim 17.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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 1,5,6,7,13,15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novack et al. (hereinafter Novack) (US 20190094468 A1) in view of Patel et al. (hereinafter Patel) (US 20170139142 A1) and further in view of Galli et al. (hereinafter Galli) (US 20110026880 A1) and Lestra et al. (hereinafter Lestra) (US 6253009 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Novack discloses in Fig. 5B,
A device [Fig. 5B] (Para. [0128]) comprising:
a semiconductor substrate [Si Handle] (Para. [0128]);
a light source [550] (Para. [0128 and Claim 50]) displaced from the semiconductor substrate [Si Handle] by a first displacement [displacement between Si Handle and 550] (Para. [0128]), with respect to a lamination axis [vertical direction Fig. 5B];
a first dielectric waveguide [560] (Para. [0128]) displaced from the semiconductor substrate [Si Handle] (Para. [0128]) by a second displacement [displacement between Si Handle and 560] with respect to the lamination axis [vertical direction Fig. 5B], the second displacement being greater than the first displacement [see Fig. 5B], the first dielectric waveguide [560] overlapping at least a portion of the light source [550] (Para. [0128]) with respect to the lamination axis [560 overlaps above 550 Fig. 5B] such that light is coupled from the light source [550] into the first dielectric waveguide [560] (see Claim 38); and
a second dielectric waveguide [570] (Para. [0128]) displaced from the semiconductor substrate [Si Handle] by a third displacement [displacement between Si Handle and 570] with respect to the lamination axis [vertical direction Fig. 5B], the third displacement [displacement between Si Handle and 570] being greater than the second displacement [displacement between Si Handle and 560] (see Fig. 5B),
the second dielectric waveguide [570] (Para. [0128]) overlapping at least a portion of the first dielectric waveguide [560] with respect to the lamination axis [570 overlaps above 560] (Para. [0128]) such that light is coupled from the first dielectric waveguide [560] into the second dielectric waveguide [570] (Para. [0128]); and
the second dielectric waveguide [570] comprising an edge coupler [555] (Para. [0128]) configured to couple light out of the second dielectric waveguide [570] in a longitudinal direction [left and right Fig. 5B] perpendicular to the lamination axis [vertical direction Fig. 5B] (Para. [0128]),
Novack fails to disclose,
the first dielectric waveguide having a first thickness defined with respect to the lamination axis, the second dielectric waveguide having a second thickness defined with respect to the lamination axis, the first thickness being thicker than the second thickness
light is adiabatically coupled from the light source into the first dielectric waveguide, light is coupled adiabatically from the first dielectric waveguide into the second dielectric waveguide
the edge coupler comprising a plurality of segments, each segment of the plurality of segments decreasing in width as it extends in the longitudinal direction
Patel discloses in Fig. 3,
adiabatic coupling between a silicon waveguide [220] and a subsequent first waveguide [340A] (Para. [0034]) and adiabatic coupling between the first waveguide [340A] and a second waveguide [340B] (Para. [0035])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the adiabatic coupling as disclosed in Patel between the light source and first dielectric waveguide and second dielectric waveguides of Novack for the purposes of transferring signals with minimal coupling loss and modal propagation. (Patel Paras. [0021,0035])
Novack in view of Patel fails to disclose,
the first dielectric waveguide having a first thickness defined with respect to the lamination axis, the second dielectric waveguide having a second thickness defined with respect to the lamination axis, the first thickness being thicker than the second thickness and
the edge coupler comprising a plurality of segments, each segment of the plurality of segments decreasing in width as it extends in the longitudinal direction
Galli discloses in Fig. 1,
a first dielectric waveguide [1] (Para. [0095]) with a first thickness [T1] defined with respect to a y-axis and, a second waveguide [2] (Para. [0098]) with a second thickness [T2] (Para. [0098]) defined with respect to the y-axis; and
the first thickness [T1] is thicker than the second thickness [T2] (Paras. [0064,0098]) (See Tables 1 and 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the differing waveguide thicknesses of Galli with the waveguides of the modified device of Novack for the purpose of achieving low optical loss. (Galli Para. [0108])
Novack in view of Patel and Galli fails to disclose,
the edge coupler comprising a plurality of segments, each segment of the plurality of segments decreasing in width as it extends in the longitudinal direction
Lestra discloses in Fig. 6A,
a passive waveguide [22] (Col. 6, lines 17-20) comprising a plurality of segments [ST,SE] (Col. 6, lines 22-34), each segment decreasing in width [W1 to W2 to W3] (Col. 6, lines 22-34) as it extends in a longitudinal direction [left to right Fig. 6A] (Col. 6, lines 22-34)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a plurality of decreasing width sections as shown with the waveguide of Lestra with the edge coupler waveguide of the modified device of Novack for the purpose of deconfining the optical mode. (Lestra Col. 6, lines 33,34)
Regarding claim 5, Novack in view of Patel, Galli and Lestra discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Novack Fig. 5B,
wherein:
the first dielectric waveguide [560] and the second dielectric waveguide [570] each comprise silicon nitride (Para. [0128]).
Regarding claim 6, Novack in view of Patel, Galli and Lestra as applied to claim 1 above discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 but fails to disclose,
wherein:
the third displacement is at least 1 micrometer greater than the second displacement.
Patel discloses in Fig. 4,
a third displacement [displacement of 415B to 115] (Paras [0043,0045]) at least 1 micrometer greater than a second displacement [H1 between 220 and 415C] (Para. [0045])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the spacing of the waveguides as disclosed in Patel with the first and second waveguides of the modified device of Novak for the purpose of ensuring desired coupling between the waveguides. (Patel Para. [0045])
Regarding claim 7, Novack in view of Patel, Galli and Lestra as applied to claim 6 above further discloses in Patel
wherein:
the third displacement is at least 3 micrometers (Para. [0045]).
Para. [0045] discloses that the gap [H1] can be between a few nanometers to 1µm, the gap [H2] is further disclosed to be within hundreds of nanometers to 5µm. Therefore, the third displacement [space between [415C and 115 Patel Fig. 4] is disclosed to be above 3µm.
Regarding claim 13, Novack in view of Patel, Galli and Lestra as applied to claim 6 above further discloses in Novack Fig. 5B,
wherein:
the device [Fig. 5B] comprises a plurality of layers [550,560,570] stacked with respect to the lamination axis [stacked in vertical direction] (Para. [0128]).
Regarding claim 15, Novack in view of Patel, Galli and Lestra discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Novack,
further comprising:
a lens optically coupled to the edge coupler [555 Fig. 5B] (Para. [0128]) in the longitudinal direction to receive the light outcoupled by the edge coupler [555 Fig. 5B] (Paras. [0145,0150]).
Regarding claim 16, Novack in view of Patel, Galli and Lestra discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Novack,
further comprising:
an optical fiber optically coupled to the edge coupler to receive the light from the edge coupler [555 Fig. 5B] (Para. [0131]) (also see 810 Fig. 8) (Para. [0133]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novack in view of Patel, Galli and Lestra as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leem et al. (hereinafter Leem) (US 20090116523 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Novack in view of Patel discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein:
the first dielectric waveguide comprises a plurality of segments, each segment decreasing in width as it extends in the longitudinal direction.
Leem discloses in Fig. 10,
a waveguide [150] (Para. [0075]) comprising a plurality of segments [151,152,153] (Para. [0075]) decreasing in width as it extends in a longitudinal direction (Para. [0075])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the decreasing waveguide width as disclosed in Leem in the modified device of Novack for the purpose of controlling the coupling coefficient. (Leem Para. [0073])
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novack in view of Patel, Galli and Lestra as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Collins et al. (hereinafter Collins) (US 20160327742 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Novack in view of Patel, Galli and Lestra discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Novack,
wherein
:the light source [550 Fig. 5B] (Para. [0128]) comprises a silicon laser (see claim 50).
Novack in view of Patel fails to disclose,
the light source comprises a hybrid silicon laser
Collins discloses in Fig. 7,
a light source comprising a hybrid silicon laser [700] (Para. [0107])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the hybrid silicon laser structure of Collins as the silicon device of the modified device of Novack for the purpose of heterogeneous integration of the laser device. (Collins Para. [0107])
Regarding claim 9, Novack in view of Patel, Galli and Lestra and Collins discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 8 above and further discloses,
wherein:
the hybrid silicon laser [Collins 700 Fig. 7] (Collins Para. [0107]) comprises:
a III-V semiconductor structure [Collins 701 Fig. 7] (Collins Para. [0107]); and
a silicon waveguide [Collins 101 Fig. 7] (Collins Para. [0107]) displaced from the semiconductor substrate [Novack Si Handle Fig. 5B] by the first displacement [Collins shows distance between 101 and 703 Fig. 7]; and
the first dielectric waveguide [Novack 560 Fig. 5B] overlaps with a portion of the silicon waveguide [Collins 101 Fig. 7] with respect to the lamination axis [vertical direction].
Examiner notes Collins Fig. 7 discloses waveguide [103] to overlap waveguide [101]
Regarding claim 10, Novack in view of Patel, Galli and Lestra and Collins discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 9 above and further discloses,
wherein:
the first dielectric waveguide [Novack 560 Fig. 5B] and a portion of the III-V semiconductor structure [Collins 701 Fig. 7] (Collins Para. [0107]) are equally displaced from the semiconductor substrate [Novack Si Handle Fig. 5B] with respect to the lamination axis [vertical direction].
Examiner notes Collins Fig. 7 discloses waveguide [103] to be in line horizontally with laser [701]
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novack in view of Patel, Galli and Lestra as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bian (US 20240329299 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Novack in view of Patel, Galli and Lestra discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein:
the light source comprises a semiconductor optical amplifier.
Bian discloses in Fig. 12,
a light source comprising a semiconductor optical amplifier [38] (Para. [0047]) at least partially in line with a first waveguide [12] (Para. [0046])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the semiconductor optical amplifier disclosed in Bian in line with at least a portion of the waveguide of the modified device of Novack for the purpose of using a different type of light source aligned with the waveguide. (Bian Para. [0047])
Regarding claim 12, Novack in view of Patel, Galli and Lestra and Bian discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 11 above and further discloses,
wherein:
the first dielectric waveguide [Novack 560 Fig. 5B] and a portion of the semiconductor optical amplifier [Bain 38 Fig. 12] (Bian Para. [0047]) are equally displaced from the semiconductor substrate [Novack Si Handle Fig. 5B] with respect to the lamination axis (see 38 and 24 Bian Fig. 12) (Bian Para. [0047]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novack in view of Patel, Galli and Lestra as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of De Angelis et al. (hereinafter De Angelis) (US 20230142315 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Novack in view of Patel discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 13 above but fails to disclose,
wherein:
the first displacement, second displacement, and third displacement each comprise one or more layers of an insulating dielectric material.
De Angelis discloses in Fig. 2a,
a displacements [227,226a,226b] (Para. [0078])between adjacent layers [230b,256,254] (Para. [0079]) comprising a layer of insulating dielectric material (Para. [0071])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the insulating dielectric material between the waveguide layers as shown in De Angelis in the modified device of Novack for the purpose of selecting a material with a desired refractive index values for separation of the waveguides. (De Angelis Paras. [0071,0078])
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novack in view of Patel, Galli and Lestra and Collins.
Regarding claim 17, Novack discloses in Fig. 5B,
A device [Fig. 5B] (Para. [0128]) comprising:
a semiconductor substrate [Si Handle] (Para. [0128]);
a silicon laser [550] (Para. [0128], see claim 50) displaced from the semiconductor substrate [Si Handle] by a first displacement with respect to a lamination axis [displacement of 550 from Si Handle in vertical direction Fig. 5B] (Para. [0128]);
a first dielectric waveguide [560] (Para. [0128]) comprising silicon nitride (Para. [0128]) and displaced from the semiconductor substrate [Si Handle] by a second displacement with respect to the lamination axis [displacement of 560 from Si Handle in vertical direction Fig. 5B], the second displacement being such that the first dielectric waveguide [560] and the silicon laser [550] at least partially overlap with respect to a longitudinal direction perpendicular to the lamination axis [560 overlaps above 550 in longitudinal direction Fig. 5B] (Para. [0128]), the first dielectric waveguide overlapping at least a portion of the hybrid silicon laser with respect to the lamination axis [560 overlaps above 550 in vertical direction Fig. 5B] (Para. [0128]) such that light is coupled from the silicon laser [550] into the first dielectric waveguide [560] (Para. [0128], see claim 38); and
a second dielectric waveguide [570] (Para. [0128]) comprising silicon nitride (Para. [0128]) and displaced from the semiconductor substrate [Si Handle] by a third displacement with respect to the lamination axis [displacement of 570 from Si Handle in vertical direction Fig. 5B], the third displacement being greater than the second displacement [570 shown to be above 560 in vertical direction Fig. 5B],
the second dielectric waveguide [570] (Para. [0128]) overlapping at least a portion of the first dielectric waveguide [560] with respect to the lamination axis [570 overlaps above 560 in vertical direction Fig. 5B] (Para. [0128]) such that light is coupled from the first dielectric waveguide [560] into the second dielectric waveguide [570] (Para. [0128]); and
the second dielectric waveguide [570] comprising an edge coupler [555] (Para. [0128]) configured to couple light out of the second dielectric waveguide [570] in the longitudinal direction (Para. [0128]).
Novack fails to disclose,
the first dielectric waveguide having a first thickness defined with respect to the lamination axis, the second dielectric waveguide having a second thickness defined with respect to the lamination axis, the first thickness being thicker than the second thickness
a hybrid silicon laser, and light being adiabatically coupled from the hybrid silicon laser into the first dielectric waveguide, and light being adiabatically coupled from the first dielectric waveguide into the second dielectric waveguide
the edge coupler comprising a plurality of segments, each segment of the plurality of segments decreasing in width as it extends in the longitudinal direction
Collins discloses in Fig. 7,
a hybrid silicon laser [700] (Para. [0107]) with light being adiabatically coupled (Para. [0085]) from the hybrid silicon laser [700] to a first dielectric waveguide [103] (Paras. [0085,0107])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the hybrid silicon laser light source shown in Collins adiabatically coupled to the first dielectric waveguide as disclosed in Collins with the device of Novack for the purpose of monolithically integrating the light source structure and transferring light with low loss. (Collins Paras. [0085,0107])
Novack in view of Collins fails to disclose,
the first dielectric waveguide having a first thickness defined with respect to the lamination axis, the second dielectric waveguide having a second thickness defined with respect to the lamination axis, the first thickness being thicker than the second thickness
light being adiabatically coupled from the first dielectric waveguide into the second dielectric waveguide
the edge coupler comprising a plurality of segments, each segment of the plurality of segments decreasing in width as it extends in the longitudinal direction
Patel discloses in Fig. 3,
adiabatic coupling between a first waveguide [340A] and a second waveguide [340B] (Para. [0035])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the adiabatic coupling as disclosed in Patel between the light source and first dielectric waveguide and second dielectric waveguides of Novack for the purposes of transferring signals with minimal coupling loss and modal propagation. (Patel Paras. [0021,0035])
Novack in view of Collins and Patel fails to disclose,
the first dielectric waveguide having a first thickness defined with respect to the lamination axis, the second dielectric waveguide having a second thickness defined with respect to the lamination axis, the first thickness being thicker than the second thickness
the edge coupler comprising a plurality of segments, each segment of the plurality of segments decreasing in width as it extends in the longitudinal direction
Galli discloses in Fig. 1,
a first dielectric waveguide [1] (Para. [0095]) with a first thickness [T1] defined with respect to a y-axis and, a second waveguide [2] (Para. [0098]) with a second thickness [T2] (Para. [0098]) defined with respect to the y-axis; and
the first thickness [T1] is thicker than the second thickness [T2] (Paras. [0064,0098]) (See Tables 1 and 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the differing waveguide thicknesses of Galli with the waveguides of the modified device of Novack for the purpose of achieving low optical loss. (Galli Para. [0108])
Novack in view of Collins, Patel and Galli fails to disclose,
the edge coupler comprising a plurality of segments, each segment of the plurality of segments decreasing in width as it extends in the longitudinal direction
Lestra discloses in Fig. 6A,
a passive waveguide [22] (Col. 6, lines 17-20) comprising a plurality of segments [ST,SE] (Col. 6, lines 22-34), each segment decreasing in width [W1 to W2 to W3] (Col. 6, lines 22-34) as it extends in a longitudinal direction [left to right Fig. 6A] (Col. 6, lines 22-34)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a plurality of decreasing width sections as shown with the waveguide of Lestra with the edge coupler waveguide of the modified device of Novack for the purpose of deconfining the optical mode. (Lestra Col. 6, lines 33,34)
Regarding claim 18, Novack in view of Patel, Galli and Lestra and Collins, discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 17 above but fails to disclose,
The third displacement is at least 1 micrometer greater than the second displacement
Patel discloses in Fig. 4,
wherein:
the third displacement [displacement of 415B to 115] (Paras [0043,0045]) is at least 1 micrometer greater than a second displacement [H1 between 220 and 415C] (Para. [0045])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the spacing of the waveguides as disclosed in Patel with the first and second waveguides of the modified device of Novack for the purpose of ensuring desired coupling between the waveguides. (Patel Para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 19, Novack in view of Patel, Galli and Lestra and Collins discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 18 above and further discloses in Patel Fig. 4,
wherein:
the third displacement is at least 3 micrometers (Para. [0045]).
Para. [0045] discloses that the gap [H1] can be between a few nanometers to 1µm, the gap [H2] is further disclosed to be within hundreds of nanometers to 5µm. Therefore, the third displacement [space between [415C and 115 Patel Fig. 4] is disclosed to be above 3µm.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novack in view of De Angelis, Patel, Galli and Lestra.
Regarding claim 20, Novack discloses
A method of manufacturing a device [Fig. 5B] (Paras. [0044,0128]), the method comprising:
forming a semiconductor substrate [Si Handle] (Paras. [0128,0129]),
forming a light source [550] (Paras. [0128, claims 50,56]) at a first displacement [distance between Si Handle and 550];
forming a first dielectric waveguide [560] (Para. [0128]) at a second displacement [distance between Si Handle and 560], the first dielectric waveguide [560] overlapping at least a portion of the light source [550] with respect to the lamination axis [560 overlaps 550 in vertical direction Fig. 5] (Para. [0128]) such that light is coupled from the light source [550] into the first dielectric waveguide [560] (see claim 38); and
forming a second dielectric waveguide [570] (Para. [0128]) at a third displacement [distance between Si Handle and 570],
the second dielectric waveguide [570] overlapping at least a portion of the first dielectric waveguide [560] with respect to the lamination axis [570 overlaps 560 in vertical direction] such that light is coupled from the first dielectric waveguide [560] into the second dielectric waveguide [570] (Para. [0128]); and
the second dielectric waveguide [570] comprising an edge coupler [555] (Para. [0128]) configured to couple light out of the second dielectric waveguide [570] in a longitudinal direction [horizontal direction Fig. 5B] perpendicular to the lamination axis [vertical direction Fig. 5B] (Para. [0128]).
Novack fails to disclose,
forming one or more layers of an insulating dielectric material on a semiconductor substrate, the layers stacked with respect to a lamination axis, to define a first displacement from the semiconductor substrate
forming one or more further layers of the insulating dielectric material to define the second displacement from the semiconductor substrate;
forming a first dielectric waveguide at a second displacement, the first dielectric waveguide overlapping at least a portion of the light source with respect to the lamination axis such that light is adiabatically coupled from the light source into the first dielectric waveguide
forming one or more further layers of the insulating dielectric material to define the third displacement from the semiconductor substrate
De Angelis discloses,
forming layers of insulating dielectric material [210 Fig. 2a] (Paras. [0071,0075] on a semiconductor substrate [208 Fig. 2a] (Para. [0075]), the layers stacked with respect to a lamination axis [vertical direction Fig. 2a], to define displacements [226a,226b,227] between respective waveguides [254,256,230] and displacements [229 Fig., 2b] between the substrate [280 Fig. 2b] and waveguide [252 Fig. 2b] (Para. [0091]) (see steps 824,826,828 Fig. 8] (Paras. [0117-0119])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the insulating dielectric material between the waveguide layers as shown in De Angelis in the modified device of Novack for the purpose of selecting a material with a desired refractive index values for separation of the waveguides. (De Angelis Paras. [0071,0078])
Novack in view of Di Angelis fails to disclose,
the first dielectric waveguide having a first thickness defined with respect to the lamination axis, the second dielectric waveguide having a second thickness defined with respect to the lamination axis, the first thickness being thicker than the second thickness,
forming a first dielectric waveguide at a second displacement, the first dielectric waveguide overlapping at least a portion of the light source with respect to the lamination axis such that light is adiabatically coupled from the light source into the first dielectric waveguide, the second dielectric waveguide overlapping at least a portion of the first dielectric waveguide such that light is adiabatically coupled from the first dielectric waveguide into the second dielectric waveguide,
the edge coupler comprising a plurality of segments, each segment of the plurality of segments decreasing in width as it extends in the longitudinal direction
Patel discloses in Fig. 3,
adiabatic coupling between a silicon waveguide [220] and a subsequent first waveguide [340A] (Para. [0034]) and adiabatic coupling between the first waveguide [340A] and a second waveguide [340B] (Para. [0035])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the adiabatic coupling as disclosed in Patel between the light source and first dielectric waveguide and second dielectric waveguides of Novack for the purposes of transferring signals with minimal coupling loss and modal propagation. (Patel Paras. [0021,0035])
Novack in view of Di Angelis and Patel fails to disclose,
the first dielectric waveguide having a first thickness defined with respect to the lamination axis, the second dielectric waveguide having a second thickness defined with respect to the lamination axis, the first thickness being thicker than the second thickness,
the edge coupler comprising a plurality of segments, each segment of the plurality of segments decreasing in width as it extends in the longitudinal direction
Galli discloses in Fig. 1,
a first dielectric waveguide [1] (Para. [0095]) with a first thickness [T1] defined with respect to a y-axis and, a second waveguide [2] (Para. [0098]) with a second thickness [T2] (Para. [0098]) defined with respect to the y-axis; and
the first thickness [T1] is thicker than the second thickness [T2] (Paras. [0064,0098]) (See Tables 1 and 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the differing waveguide thicknesses of Galli with the waveguides of the modified device of Novack for the purpose of achieving low optical loss. (Galli Para. [0108])
Novack in view of Di Angelis, Patel and Galli fails to disclose,
the edge coupler comprising a plurality of segments, each segment of the plurality of segments decreasing in width as it extends in the longitudinal direction
Lestra discloses in Fig. 6A,
a passive waveguide [22] (Col. 6, lines 17-20) comprising a plurality of segments [ST,SE] (Col. 6, lines 22-34), each segment decreasing in width [W1 to W2 to W3] (Col. 6, lines 22-34) as it extends in a longitudinal direction [left to right Fig. 6A] (Col. 6, lines 22-34)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a plurality of decreasing width sections as shown with the waveguide of Lestra with the edge coupler waveguide of the modified device of Novack for the purpose of deconfining the optical mode. (Lestra Col. 6, lines 33,34)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes (US 10641956 B1) which discloses a waveguide with a plurality of sections decreasing in width across a longitudinal direction. See PTO-892 form.
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 HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/XINNING(Tom) NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights