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, see pages 7-11, filed 1/27/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9, 11, and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bond et al. (US 6,376,272 B1), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Koch et al. (US 2021/0215875 A1).
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, 2, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koch et al. (US 2021/0215875 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Koch et al. discloses a silicon photonic platform, comprising:
a composite substrate 108 comprising a substrate top surface and a first photonic platform layer 206, the first photonic platform layer 206 comprising a photonic platform material (e.g., silicon) (Figs. 2A and 4B; [0058]);
a first signal layer 208 covering the first photonic platform layer 206, having a top surface, and comprising the photonic platform material and a first signal material, wherein a photonic platform spectral signal of the photonic platform material is different from a first spectral signal of the first signal material (Figs. 2A and 4B; [0065]); and
a second photonic platform layer 210 having a top surface, at least covering a portion of the top surface of the first signal layer 208 and exposing a portion of the top surface of the first signal layer, and comprising the photonic platform material, wherein the second photonic platform layer 210 comprises at least one ridge structure, and the second photonic platform layer 210 forms the silicon photonic platform together with the first photonic platform layer 210 (Figs. 2A and 4B; [0067], [0069], and [0079]),
wherein the portion of the top surface of the first signal layer 208 exposed from the second photonic platform layer 112 is lower than the portion of the top surface of the first signal layer 208 covered by the second photonic platform layer 112 (Figs. 2A and 4B; [0076]).
Re. Claim 2, Koch et al. discloses the second photonic platform layer 210 comprises one single ridge structure, so that the silicon photonic platform becomes a rib silicon photonic platform (Fig. 2A).
Re. Claim 14, Koch et al. discloses the photonic platform material is selected from a group consisting of silicon and silicon nitride (Figs. 2A and 4B; [0058]).
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.
Claim(s) 4-8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al. (US 2021/0215875 A1).
Re. Claim 4, Koch et al discloses the silicon photonic platform as discussed above, but fails to disclose an arrangement wherein a first fluctuation value of a first vertical distance between the substrate top surface and the top surface of the first signal layer is less than 2 nanometers.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of achieving a first signal layer of desired thickness. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re. Claim 5, Koch et al discloses the silicon photonic platform as discussed above, but fails to disclose an arrangement wherein a thickness of the first signal layer is less than 10 nanometers.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of achieving a first signal layer of desired thickness. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re. Claim 6, Koch et al discloses the silicon photonic platform as discussed above, but fails to disclose an arrangement wherein a ratio of a thickness of the first signal layer to a thickness of the first photonic platform layer is 0.05 to 0.1.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of achieving a first signal layer and first photonic platform layer of desired thicknesses. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re. Claim 7, Koch et al discloses the silicon photonic platform as discussed above, but fails to disclose an arrangement wherein a second fluctuation value of a second vertical distance between the substrate top surface and the top surface of the second photonic platform is less than 2 nanometers.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of achieving a second photonic platform of desired thickness. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re. Claim 8, Koch et al discloses the silicon photonic platform as discussed above, but fails to disclose an arrangement wherein a ratio of a thickness of the second signal layer to a thickness of the second photonic platform layer is 0.05 to 0.1.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of achieving a second photonic platform and second signal layer of desired thicknesses. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re. Claim 15, Koch et al discloses the silicon photonic platform as discussed above, but fails to disclose an arrangement wherein the photonic platform material is used for directionally guiding an electromagnetic wave, and a wavelength of the electromagnetic wave is greater than 760 nanometers.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose utilizing a signal of desired frequency. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest a silicon photonic platform as required by the claims, specifically comprising a third photonic platform layer covering the top surface of the first signal layer and comprising the photonic platform material; and a second signal layer covering the third photonic platform layer, having a top surface, and comprising the photonic platform material and a second signal material, wherein the photonic platform spectral signal of the photonic platform material is different from a second spectral signal of the second signal material.
The most applicable prior art, Koch et al. (US 2021/0215875 A1), addressed above, fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically those portions highlighted above in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest a method for forming a composite platform, comprising: providing a composite substrate having a substrate top surface and a first photonic platform layer, wherein the first photonic platform layer comprises a photonic platform material; forming a first signal layer covering the first photonic platform layer, and comprising the photonic platform material and a first signal material, wherein a photonic platform spectral signal of the photonic platform material is different from a first spectral signal of the first signal material; forming a third photonic platform layer covering the first signal layer and comprising the photonic platform material; forming a second signal layer covering the third photonic platform layer, and comprising the photonic platform material and a second signal material, wherein the photonic platform spectral signal of the photonic platform material is different from a second spectral signal of the second signal material; and forming a second photonic platform layer covering the second signal layer and comprising the photonic platform material, and performing an etching process on the second photonic platform layer, so that the composite substrate, the first signal layer, the third photonic platform layer, the second signal layer, and the etched second photonic platform layer together form the composite platform, wherein the etching process is stopped when the second spectral signal is added to the photonic platform spectral signal and detected during the etching process.
The most applicable prior art, Bond et al. (US 6,376,272 B1), addressed in the Office Action mailed 10/31/25, fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically those portions highlighted above in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
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 R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (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 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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 3/17/26