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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statements (PTO-1449) filed 06/13/2025 and 09/18/2025. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 11-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siew et al. (“Ultra-low loss ridge waveguides on lithium niobate via argon ion milling and gas clustered ion beam smoothening” 2017), hereinafter “Siew”, in view of Brown et al. (USP No. 10,923,446), hereinafter “Brown”.
Regarding claim 1, Siew discloses an optical device (Abstract), comprising: at least one ferroelectric nonlinear optical material having a sidewall (Abstract), the sidewall being fabricated utilizing lithography such that the sidewall has a short range root mean square surface roughness of less than ten nanometers (2. Methodology Pg. 4425, 3. Characterization Pg. 4426, last paragraph), the at least one ferroelectric nonlinear optical material including lithium (Abstract); and wherein the sidewall is fabricated using the lithography to form a mask on the at least one nonlinear optical material and a plurality of etches (2. Methodology Pgs. 4425-4426), the plurality of etches including a first etch and a second etch, the first etch for removing a portion of an layer (2. Methodology Pg. 4425), the second etch for removing a portion of the at least one ferroelectric nonlinear optical material to form the sidewall such that the sidewall has the short range root mean square surface roughness of less than ten nanometers upon completion of the second etch (2. Methodology Pg. 4426, 3. Characterization Pg. 4426, last paragraph), the second etch being selected from a dry etch, a reactive ion etch (RIE), a plasma etch and a chemical etch (2. Methodology Pg. 4426). Siew discloses the claimed invention except for ultraviolet (UV) photolithography, the UV photolithography including a pre-exposure heat treatment of a mask layer for the mask, the first etch for removing a portion of an antireflective layer. In the same field of endeavor, Brown discloses ultraviolet (UV) photolithography (150) (see Figs. 1F-1H, Col. 4, Line 46 – Col. 5, Line 5), the UV photolithography including a pre-exposure heat treatment of a mask layer (130) for the mask (135) (see Figs. 1F-1H, Col. 4, Line 46 – Col. 5, Line 5), the first etch for removing a portion of an antireflective layer (125) (see Figs. 1F-1H, Col. 4, Line 46 – Col. 5, Line 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Siew with ultraviolet (UV) photolithography, the UV photolithography including a pre-exposure heat treatment of a mask layer for the mask, the first etch for removing a portion of an antireflective layer of Brown for the purpose of developing an etch mask in order obtain the desired patterning (Col. 4, Lines 46-48).
Regarding claim 2, Siew further discloses wherein the second etch is different from the first etch (2. Methodology Pgs. 4425-4426).
Regarding claim 4, Siew further discloses wherein the first etch removes a portion of a hard mask layer to form a hard mask, the second etch for removing the portion of the at least one ferroelectric nonlinear optical material exposed by the hard mask (2. Methodology Pgs. 4425-4426).
Regarding claim 6, Siew discloses a device (Abstract), comprising: an optical device including at least one ferroelectric nonlinear optical material having a sidewall (Abstract), the sidewall being fabricated utilizing lithography such that the sidewall has a short range root mean square surface roughness of less than ten nanometers (2. Methodology Pg. 4425, 3. Characterization Pg. 4426, last paragraph), the at least one ferroelectric nonlinear optical material including at least one of lithium tantalate and lithium niobate (Abstract); wherein the sidewall is fabricated using the lithography to form a mask on the at least one nonlinear optical material and a plurality of etches (2. Methodology Pgs. 4425-4426), the plurality of etches including a first etch and a second etch (2. Methodology Pgs. 4425-4426), the first etch for removing a portion of an layer, the second etch for removing a portion of the at least one ferroelectric nonlinear optical material to form the sidewall (2. Methodology Pgs. 4425-4426), the second etch being selected from a dry etch, a reactive ion etch (RIE), a plasma etch and a chemical etch (2. Methodology Pg. 4426), the second etch being different from the first etch such that the sidewall has the short range root mean square surface roughness of less than ten nanometers upon completion of the second etch (2. Methodology Pg. 4426, 3. Characterization Pg. 4426, last paragraph). Siew discloses the claimed invention except for ultraviolet (UV) photolithography, the UV photolithography including a pre-exposure heat treatment of a mask layer for the mask, the first etch for removing a portion of an antireflective layer. In the same field of endeavor, Brown discloses ultraviolet (UV) photolithography (150) (see Figs. 1F-1H, Col. 4, Line 46 – Col. 5, Line 5), the UV photolithography including a pre-exposure heat treatment of a mask layer (130) for the mask (135) (see Figs. 1F-1H, Col. 4, Line 46 – Col. 5, Line 5), the first etch for removing a portion of an antireflective layer (125) (see Figs. 1F-1H, Col. 4, Line 46 – Col. 5, Line 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Siew with ultraviolet (UV) photolithography, the UV photolithography including a pre-exposure heat treatment of a mask layer for the mask, the first etch for removing a portion of an antireflective layer of Brown for the purpose of developing an etch mask in order obtain the desired patterning (Col. 4, Lines 46-48).
Regarding claim 11, Siew further discloses wherein the at least the portion of the optical device has a loss of not more than 2 dB/cm (Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Siew further discloses wherein the loss is less than 1.0 dB/cm (Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Siew further discloses wherein the loss is less than 0.5dB/cm (Abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Siew further discloses wherein the loss is not more than 0.1 dB/cm (1. Introduction Pg. 4423, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 19, Siew discloses the sidewall (2. Methodology Pgs. 4425-4426). Siew and Brown teach the method set forth above for claim 1, Brown further discloses wherein the first etch removes the portion of the antireflective layer before formation (see Figs. 1F-1H, Col. 4, Line 46 – Col. 5, Line 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Siew with the teachings of Brown for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 3, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siew (“Ultra-low loss ridge waveguides on lithium niobate via argon ion milling and gas clustered ion beam smoothening” 2017) in view of Brown (USP No. 10,923,446) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Lipson et al. (USPG Pub No. 2019/0391415), hereinafter “Lipson”
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Siew and Brown disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the at least one ferroelectric nonlinear optical material resides on a substrate having an undiced width, the at least one ferroelectric nonlinear optical material having a stitch therein, the stitch being separated from an additional stitch by at least twenty millimeters and not more than the undiced width of the substrate. In the same field of endeavor, Lipson discloses wherein the at least one ferroelectric nonlinear optical material resides on a substrate having an undiced width, the at least one ferroelectric nonlinear optical material having a stitch therein, the stitch being separated from an additional stitch by at least twenty millimeters and not more than the undiced width of the substrate (Paragraphs 60, 62, 63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Siew and Brown with wherein the at least one ferroelectric nonlinear optical material resides on a substrate having an undiced width, the at least one ferroelectric nonlinear optical material having a stitch therein, the stitch being separated from an additional stitch by at least twenty millimeters and not more than the undiced width of the substrate of Lipson for the purpose of providing a miniaturized waveguide with an increased optical path length with low propagation loss (Paragraph 59). Furthermore, 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 (CCPA 1955). Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Siew and Brown disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the sidewall is fabricated using deep UV photolithography. In the same field of endeavor, Lipson discloses wherein the sidewall is fabricated using deep UV photolithography (Paragraph 60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Siew and Brown with wherein the sidewall is fabricated using deep UV photolithography of Lipson for the purpose of providing a miniaturized waveguide with an increased optical path length with low propagation loss (Paragraph 59).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siew (“Ultra-low loss ridge waveguides on lithium niobate via argon ion milling and gas clustered ion beam smoothening” 2017) in view of Brown (USP No. 10,923,446) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Krasnokutska et al. (“Ultra-low loss photonic circuits in Lithium Niobate On Insulator” 2017), hereinafter “Krasnokutska”.
Regarding claim 10, Siew and Brown disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the short range root mean square surface roughness is not more than five nanometers. In the same field of endeavor, Krasnokutska discloses wherein the short range root mean square surface roughness is not more than five nanometers (Pg. 1, Col. 2, Paragraph 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Siew and Brown with wherein the short range root mean square surface roughness is not more than five nanometers of Krasnokutska for the purpose of providing highly efficient photonic platform (Abstract).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siew (“Ultra-low loss ridge waveguides on lithium niobate via argon ion milling and gas clustered ion beam smoothening” 2017) in view of Brown (USP No. 10,923,446) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kori et al. (USPG Pub No. 2019/0027369), hereinafter “Kori”.
Regarding claim 20, Siew and Brown disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the UV photolithography further includes a post-exposure heat treatment of the mask layer for the mask. In the same field of endeavor, Kori discloses wherein the UV photolithography further includes a post-exposure heat treatment of the mask layer for the mask (Paragraphs 192, 194). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Siew and Brown with wherein the UV photolithography further includes a post-exposure heat treatment of the mask layer for the mask of Kori for the purpose of forming a mask (Paragraph 232).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Siew teaches a method of forming an optical device with several etching steps. Applicant argued that due to the steps of argon ion milling and gas clustered ion beam smoothing, Siew does not disclose forming the sidewall with a short range root mean square surface roughness of less than ten nanometers upon completion of the second etch. In the art, a gas clustered ion beam smoothing step is considered a form of etching. Since this step is the final step in obtaining the recited parameter, it is interpreted as the second etch. Furthermore, the transitional term “comprising” is open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited method steps (see MPEP 2111.03).
Lastly, Brown addresses any additional challenged subject matter and cures the deficiencies of Siew. For these reasons, the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571 272-2333. 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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 12/25/2025
Prosecution Insights