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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/15/2024, 02/06/2025 and 02/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 recites “wherein the lip waveguide”. For examination purposes “wherein the lip waveguide” will be read as “wherein the rib waveguide”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (“Silicon Optical Modulator Using a Low-loss Phase Shifter Based on Multimode Interference Waveguide”, 25 June 2019, Examiner has provided a PDF copy) in view of Sugiyama (US 8,078,015).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue discloses a Mach-Zehnder optical modulator (Figure 1A) comprising: an input (Figure 1A depicts: optical input); an output (Figure 1A depicts: optical output); an optical power splitter (see annotated Figure A below, which is annotated Figure 1A of Inoue) provided between the input and the output (annotated Figure 1A); an optical power combiner (see annotated Figure A below) provided between the optical power splitter and the output (see annotated Figure A below); branch waveguides (see annotated Figure A below) connected between the optical power splitter and the optical power combiner (see annotated Figure A below); electrodes provided on the outer periphery of the branch waveguides (see annotated Figure A below) and between the branch waveguides (see annotated Figure A below); and multi-mode interferers (see annotated Figure A below; Examiner notes that the multimode waveguide of Figure 1B is considered the multi-mode interferers) provided between the electrodes (see annotated Figure A below; Examiner notes that the “interferers” are positioned between the Al electrodes, see Figure 1B), and connected in series to the branch waveguides (Examiner notes that each branch has a plurality of multi-mode interferers connected in series, see Figure 1B of Inoue for multiple self-imaging portions that divide the multi-mode interferes).
Inoue fails to disclose an optical device with an input waveguide on one side of a substrate, an output waveguide provided on the other side of the substrate an optical power splitter provided between the input waveguide and the output waveguide and the an optical combiner provided between the optical power splitter and the output waveguide. Inoue and Sugiyama are related because both disclose optical systems.
Sugiyama teaches an optical device with an input waveguide (Col. 4, line 55 teaches: 11, input waveguide) on one side of a substrate (Figure 3 depicts: 11, input waveguide on right hand side of 10, substrate; therefore considered to be on one side of a substrate), an output waveguide (Col. 5, line 11 teaches: 26A, output waveguide) provided on the other side of the substrate (Figure 3 depicts: 26A, output waveguide, provided on the left hand side of 10, substrate; therefore considered on the other side of the substrate); an optical power splitter (Figure 3 depicts: 12, optical branching section; therefore considered an optical power splitter) provided between the input waveguide and the output waveguide (Figure 3 depicts: 12, optical branching section, between 11, input waveguide and 26A, output waveguide) and an optical combiner (Figure 3 depicts: 25A, optical multiplexing section; therefore considered an optical combiner) provided between the optical power splitter and the output waveguide (Figure 3 depicts: 25A, optical multiplexing section, between 12, optical branching section and 26A, output waveguide).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Inoue to incorporate the teachings of Sugiyama and provide an optical device with an input waveguide on one side of a substrate, an output waveguide provided on the other side of the substrate an optical power splitter provided between the input waveguide and the output waveguide and the an optical combiner provided between the optical power splitter and the output waveguide. Doing so would allow for better optical alignment and light control, thereby improving the overall performance and efficiency of the optical system.
PNG
media_image1.png
526
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A
Regarding claim 2, the modified Inoue discloses the Mach-Zehnder optical modulator of claim 1, wherein the multi-mode interferers have a width greater than a width of the branch waveguides (annotated Figure A above depicts: multi-mode interferer with a width greater than a width of the branch waveguides).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Inoue discloses the Mach-Zehnder optical modulator of claim 2, wherein the electrodes are extended onto the multi-mode interferers (Figures 1A and 1B collectively depict: Si electrode fin extended onto multimode waveguide, that is considered the multi-mode interferer; Examiner notes that “the electrodes” are considered to include the Si and Al electrodes).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Inoue discloses the Mach-Zehnder optical modulator of claim 2, wherein the electrodes have a separation distance less than the width of the multi-mode interferers (Figure 2B depicts: magnified drawing of electrode fin, which continues through the multimode waveguide; therefore considered to have a separation distance of zero, which is less than the width of the multimode waveguide, that is considered the “interferer”).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Inoue discloses the Mach-Zehnder optical modulator of claim 4, wherein the separation distance between the electrodes is greater than the width of the branch waveguides (Figure 1A depicts: Al Electrodes with a greater separation distance than the width of the branch waveguides, see Figure 1B; Examiner notes that the width of the branch waveguides is considered the width of each individual optical branch path).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Inoue discloses the Mach-Zehnder optical modulator of claim 4.
Inoue fails to disclose a device wherein the separation distance between the electrodes is 2 μm to 9 μm. However, choosing a distance between electrodes is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to choose an optimal range of electrode separation distances since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing the modulator with an electron separation distance between 2 micrometer and 9 micrometer described in the instant application solves any stated problem is for any particular purpose or produces an unexpected result. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any optimized distance to balance modular efficiency, capacitance and propagation loss, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Inoue discusses the optimizable distances of the electrodes in Section 2.2 design of the phase modulator and its effect on transmittance. Therefore, the claimed use of the separation distance between the electrodes is 2 μm to 9 μm represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Inoue discloses the Mach-Zehnder optical modulator of claim 1, further comprising gratings between the multi-mode interferers and the electrodes (Figures 1A and 1B depict: Si electrode fins, in a grating orientation, between the multimode waveguide, that is considered the “multi-mode interferer”).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Inoue discloses the Mach-Zehnder optical modulator of claim 7, wherein the gratings comprises: a first grating provided on one side of the multi-mode interferers (see annotated Figure B below); and a second grating provided on the other side of the multi-mode interferers (see annotated Figure B below).
PNG
media_image2.png
487
533
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B
Regarding claim 10, the modified Inoue discloses the Mach-Zehnder optical modulator of claim 7, wherein the gratings are provided on both sides of the multi-mode interferers (see annotated Figure B above) and on both sides of the branch waveguides between the multi-mode interferers (see annotated Figure B above).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (“Silicon Optical Modulator Using a Low-loss Phase Shifter Based on Multimode Interference Waveguide”, 25 June 2019) in view of Sugiyama (US 8,078,015), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ives et al. (US 2021/0175276).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Inoue discloses the Mach-Zehnder optical modulator of claim 7.
Inoue fails to disclose a device further comprising auxiliary waveguides between the gratings and the electrodes. Inoue and Ives are related because both disclose optical systems.
Ives teaches a device further comprising auxiliary waveguides between the gratings and the electrodes ([0076]-[0078] teach: grating coupler with grating rulers, the rib waveguides, with the grating coupler being inside the suspended channel waveguides, see Figure 3A; these waveguides are disposed between the grating and the modulator electrodes, corresponding to the claimed auxiliary waveguides).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Inoue to incorporate the teachings of Ives and provide a device further comprising auxiliary waveguides between the gratings and the electrodes. Doing so would allow for better optical alignment and light control, thereby improving the overall performance and efficiency of the optical system.
Claims 11-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (“Silicon Optical Modulator Using a Low-loss Phase Shifter Based on Multimode Interference Waveguide”, 25 June 2019) in view of Sugiyama (US 2023/0296927) hereinafter Sugiyama927 in view of Sugiyama (US 8,078,015).
Regarding claim 11, Inoue discloses a Mach-Zehnder optical modulator (Figure 1A) comprising: a rib waveguide layer (Figure 1A depicts: rib waveguide layer), wherein the rib waveguide layer includes: an input (Figure 1A depicts: optical input); an output (Figure 1A depicts: optical output); an optical power splitter (see annotated Figure A above, which is annotated Figure 1A of Inoue) provided between the input and the output (see annotated Figure 1A above); an optical power combiner (see annotated Figure A above) provided between the optical power splitter and the output (see annotated Figure A above); branch waveguides (see annotated Figure A above) connected between the optical power splitter and the optical power combiner (see annotated Figure A above); and multi-mode interferers (see annotated Figure A above; Examiner notes that the multimode waveguide of Figure 1B is considered the multi-mode interferers) connected in series to the branch waveguides (Examiner notes that each branch has a plurality of multi-mode interferers connected in series, see annotated Figure A below Examiner notes that each branch has a plurality of multi-mode interferers connected in series, see Figure 1B of Inoue for multiple self-imaging portions that divide the multi-mode interferes).
Inoue fails to disclose a device with a substrate; a slab waveguide layer on the substrate; and a rib waveguide layer on the slab waveguide layer, wherein the rib waveguide layer includes: an input waveguide provided on one side of the substrate; an output waveguide provided on the other side of the substrate; an optical power splitter provided between the input waveguide and the output waveguide and the an optical combiner provided between the optical power splitter and the output waveguide. Inoue and Sugiyama927 are related because both disclose optical systems.
Sugiyama927 teaches with a substrate (in at least abstract teaches: an optical device includes a substrate); a slab waveguide layer on the substrate (in at least abstract teaches: optical waveguide that includes a slab; therefore considered to be a slab waveguide layer and the optical device is considered to be formed on the substrate); and a rib waveguide layer on the slab waveguide layer (in at least abstract teaches: optical waveguide that includes a rib on the slab).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Inoue to incorporate the teachings of Sugiyama927 and provide a device with a substrate; a slab waveguide layer on the substrate; and a rib waveguide layer on the slab waveguide layer. Doing so would allow for better optical alignment and light wave control, thereby improving the overall performance and quality of the optical system. Inoue and Sugiyama are related because both disclose optical systems.
Sugiyama teaches an optical device with an input waveguide (Col. 4, line 55 teaches: 11, input waveguide) on one side of a substrate (Figure 3 depicts: 11, input waveguide on right hand side of 10, substrate; therefore considered to be on one side of a substrate), an output waveguide (Col. 5, line 11 teaches: 26A, output waveguide) provided on the other side of the substrate (Figure 3 depicts: 26A, output waveguide, provided on the left hand side of 10, substrate; therefore considered on the other side of the substrate); an optical power splitter (Figure 3 depicts: 12, optical branching section; therefore considered an optical power splitter) provided between the input waveguide and the output waveguide (Figure 3 depicts: 12, optical branching section, between 11, input waveguide and 26A, output waveguide) and an optical combiner (Figure 3 depicts: 25A, optical multiplexing section; therefore considered an optical combiner) provided between the optical power splitter and the output waveguide (Figure 3 depicts: 25A, optical multiplexing section, between 12, optical branching section and 26A, output waveguide).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Inoue to incorporate the teachings of Sugiyama and provide an optical device with an input waveguide on one side of a substrate, an output waveguide provided on the other side of the substrate an optical power splitter provided between the input waveguide and the output waveguide and the an optical combiner provided between the optical power splitter and the output waveguide. Doing so would allow for better optical alignment and light control, thereby improving the overall performance and efficiency of the optical system.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Inoue discloses the Mach-Zehnder optical modulator of claim 11, further comprising electrodes between the branch waveguides (Figure 1A depicts: electrodes between the branch waveguides; see Al electrodes between and outside the branch waveguides, see annotated Figure 1A above for further description of placement).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Inoue discloses the Mach-Zehnder optical modulator of claim 12, wherein the electrodes comprises: a first external electrode provided on one side of the branch waveguides (see annotated Figure C below, which is an annotated Figure 1A of Inoue; Examiner notes that the external and internal electrodes include the Al electrodes and the Si electrodes); a second external electrode provided on the other side of the branch waveguides (see annotated Figure C below); and an internal electrode provided between the branch waveguides (see annotated Figure C below).
PNG
media_image3.png
440
915
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure C
Regarding claim 14, the modified Inoue discloses the Mach-Zehnder optical modulator of claim 13, wherein the first external electrode (see annotated Figure D below, which is an annotated Figure 1B of Inoue), the second external electrode (see annotated Figure D below; Examiner notes that the Si electrodes are considered to be the bottom layer of the multimode waveguide, which is considered to be the multi-mode interferer; therefore considered to be provided on the interferer), and the internal electrode are each provided on the multi-mode interferers (see annotated Figure D below).
PNG
media_image4.png
480
932
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure D
Regarding claim 15, the modified Inoue discloses the Mach-Zehnder optical modulator of claim 13, wherein the multi-mode interferers have a width greater than a distance between the first external electrode and the internal electrode (see annotate Figure D above, the Si electrode and the Al electrodes meet and the distance between them is considered to be zero) and a distance between the second external electrode and the internal electrode (see annotate Figure D above, the Si electrode and the Al electrodes meet and the distance between them is considered to be zero; therefore the multimode waveguide has a greater distance than the gap between the electrodes).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Inoue discloses the Mach-Zehnder optical modulator of claim 11, wherein the rib waveguide further comprises gratings between the multi-mode interferers and the electrodes (Examiner notes that the fins of the Si electrode are considered the gratings and these grating are between the Al electrodes and the multimode waveguide, that is considered to be the multi-mode interferer; therefore considered to be the grating between the multi-mode interferers and the electrodes).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Inoue discloses the Mach-Zehnder optical modulator of claim 16, wherein the gratings comprises: a first grating provided on one side of the multi-mode interferers (see annotated Figure B above); and a second grating provided on the other side of the multi-mode interferers (see annotated Figure B above).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Inoue discloses the Mach-Zehnder optical modulator of claim 16, wherein the gratings are provided on both sides of the multi-mode interferers (see annotated Figure B above) and on both sides of the branch waveguides between the multi-mode interferers (see annotated Figure B above).
Claim 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (“Silicon Optical Modulator Using a Low-loss Phase Shifter Based on Multimode Interference Waveguide”, 25 June 2019) in view of Sugiyama (US 2023/0296927) hereinafter Sugiyama927 in view of Sugiyama (US 8,078,015), as applied to claim 17 above, in view of Ives et al. (US 2021/0175276).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, the modified Inoue discloses the Mach-Zehnder optical modulator of claim 17.
Inoue fails to disclose a device further comprising auxiliary waveguides between the gratings and the electrodes. Inoue and Ives are related because both disclose optical systems.
Ives teaches a device further comprising auxiliary waveguides between the gratings and the electrodes ([0076]-[0078] teach: grating coupler with grating rulers, the rib waveguides, with the grating coupler being inside the suspended channel waveguides, see Figure 3A; these waveguides are disposed between the grating and the modulator electrodes, corresponding to the claimed auxiliary waveguides).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Inoue to incorporate the teachings of Ives and provide a device further comprising auxiliary waveguides between the gratings and the electrodes. Doing so would allow for better optical alignment and light control, thereby improving the overall performance and efficiency of the optical system.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Inoue discloses the Mach-Zehnder optical modulator of claim 18, wherein the auxiliary waveguides comprises: a first auxiliary waveguide adjacent to the first grating; and a second auxiliary waveguide adjacent to the second grating (Ives: [0076]-[0078] teach and Figure 21A depicts: each grating coupler is connected to a rib/suspended-channel waveguide that extends directly from the grating; Examiner notes that these waveguides are adjacent to their respective gratings and correspond to the claimed first and second auxiliary waveguides; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Takabayashi et al. (US 2023/0221612), Osiso et al. (US 11,276,287), Talkhoonchen et al. (US 2020/0099454), Sugiyama et al. (US 2011/0194802) and Utaka et al. (US 5,315,422) all disclose relevant optical systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 - 11:00 and 1:00 - 6:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872