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 with respect to claims 1 and 17 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doerr (US 11,543,728 B2). Doerr teaches:
1. A photonic coupler (100, Figs. 1, 4), comprising:
a second terminal (430, 432) including a first segment (430) and a second segment (432) that are disconnected from one another (see Fig. 4);
a first input waveguide (part of 402 at the left side of the device 100 - upstream) and a second input waveguide (part of 404 at the left side of the device - upstream), wherein the first input waveguide (part of 402) is optically coupled to the first segment (430) and the second input waveguide (part of 404) is optically coupled to the second segment (432) (see Fig. 4);
a first output waveguide (part of 402 at the right side of the device 100 – downstream) and a second output waveguide (part of 404 at the right side of the device 100 – downstream);
a coupling region (see 412, 414) in which electromagnetic fields associated with two or more of the first input waveguide (part of 402), the second input waveguide (part of 404), the first output waveguide (part of 402), and the second output waveguide (part of 404) overlap (dotted lines 412 and 414 show the overlap; C8 L1-13); and
an electro-optic device (the electrical terminals coupled with the waveguides) in the coupling region (at 412, 414) comprising an index of refraction that is a first function of an applied voltage (C16 L52-67), wherein the electro-optic device includes a first terminal (434, 436).
2. The photonic coupler of claim 1, wherein the coupling region comprises an effective coupling length (see Fig. 1, there is a coupling length), along an optical propagation direction (see arrows), which is a second function of a product of a physical length of the coupling region multiplied by the index of refraction of the electro-optic device (these limitations just define a variable and Doerr teaches a physical length of the coupling region and Doerr teaches an index of refraction of the electro-optic device, wherefore Doerr teaches an "effective coupling length").
6. The photonic coupler of claim 2, wherein the effective coupling length is increased when the applied voltage comprises a first polarity and is decreased when the applied voltage comprises a second polarity that is opposite to the first polarity (C5 L38-49).
7. The photonic coupler of claim 1, wherein the first terminal (434, 436) comprises a first semiconductor material doped with first-conductivity-type dopant (P-dopant, see Fig. 4);
the second terminal (430, 432) comprises a second semiconductor material doped with a second-conductivity-type dopant (n-dopant, see Fig. 4); and
the electro-optic device further comprises a dielectric layer (444, 446) separating the first terminal from the second terminal (see Fig. 4).
17. A method of forming a photonic coupler (100, Figs. 1, 4), comprising:
forming a first terminal (434, 436);
forming a second terminal (430, 432) including a first segment (430) and a second segment (432) that are disconnected from one another (Fig. 4);
forming a first input waveguide (part of 402 at the left side of the device 100 - upstream) and a second input waveguide (part of 404 at the left side of the device - upstream), wherein the first input waveguide (part of 402) is optically coupled to the first segment (430) and the second input waveguide (part of 404) is optically coupled to the second segment (432) (Fig. 4);
forming a first output waveguide (part of 402 at the right side of the device 100 – downstream) and a second output waveguide (part of 404 at the right side of the device 100 – downstream); and
forming a coupling region (see 412, 414) comprising an electro-optic device (the electrical terminals coupled with the waveguides) that comprises an index of refraction that is a function of an applied voltage (C16 L52-67),
wherein electromagnetic fields associated with two or more of the first input waveguide (part of 402), the second input waveguide (part of 404), the first output waveguide (part of 402), and the second output waveguide (part of 404) overlap one another in the coupling region (dotted lines 412 and 414 show the overlap; C8 L1-13).
18. The method of claim 17, wherein forming the coupling region further comprises:
forming a first coupling waveguide (part of 402 at 412) segment that is optically coupled to the first input waveguide (part of 402 at the left side of the device 100 - upstream) and to the first output waveguide (part of 402 at the right side of the device 100 – downstream); and
forming a second coupling waveguide segment (part of 404 at 414) that is optically coupled to the second input waveguide (part of 404 at the left side of the device - upstream) and the second output waveguide part of 404 at the right side of the device 100 – downstream), wherein each of the first coupling waveguide segment (part of each 402, 404 at 412, 414) and the second coupling waveguide segment (part of 404 at 414) comprises the electro-optic device (the electrical terminals coupled with the waveguides).
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doerr.
Doerr teaches the photonic coupler previously discussed including a coupling length, an applied voltage that changes the refractive index of the coupler for coupling percentages of a first and second electromagnetic energy between the input to the output waveguides (C16 L52-67).
Doerr does not teach:
3. The photonic coupler of claim 2, wherein the effective coupling length is a function of the applied voltage and depends on the index of refraction of the electro-optic device, and wherein the effective coupling length is voltage-tunable to be an integer multiple of a wavelength plus a quarter wavelength.
4. The photonic coupler of claim 3, wherein a first percentage of a first electromagnetic energy is coupled from the first input waveguide into the second output waveguide and a second percentage of a second electromagnetic energy is coupled from the second input waveguide into the first output waveguide, and wherein the first percentage of the first electromagnetic energy and the second percentage of the second electromagnetic energy are functions of the applied voltage.
5. The photonic coupler of claim 4, wherein each of the first percentage and the second percentage is between 41% and 59%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try using integer multiples of a wavelength plus a quarter wavelength for the coupling length to result in a 50/50 coupler (50% would be the first and second percentages from claims 4 and 5), since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Doerr teaches all the structure needed for the effective coupling, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a quarter wavelength multiple for a 50/50 coupler since different percentages of coupling are known and one of ordinary skill the art would expect using these values to succeed in Doerr since Doerr already provides the structure to apply these values.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doerr as applied to claims 1, 7, 17 and 18 above, and further in view of Sun (US 10,036,855 B1).
Doerr teaches the photonic coupler previously discussed and including an oxide dielectric layer (444, 446; C8 L1-13).
Doerr does not teach expressly:
8/19. The photonic coupler of claim 7/18, wherein: the first terminal comprises n-type polysilicon; the second terminal comprises p-type silicon; and the dielectric layer comprises silicon oxide.
Sun teaches a photonic coupler with a first terminal comprises a p-type polysilicon (22), a second terminal comprises n-type silicon (24) and the dielectric layer (42) comprises silicon oxide (C8 L10-40).
Doerr and Sun are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical couplers using P-i-N structures.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the materials of Doerr to use polysilicon as either the p or n doped section, silicon as the p or n doped section and silicon dioxide for the dielectric layer as taught by Sun.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try using polysilicon and silicon as the doped layers and silicon dioxide for an insulator/dielectric layers, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
The motivation for doing so would have been to be able to tailor the different plasma dispersion effects based on the different material (Sun; C7 L60 – C8 L9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16 are allowed.
Claims 9-11 and 20 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 12-16: These claims are allowable over the prior art of record because the latter, either alone or in combination, does not disclose nor render obvious first through fourth input and output waveguides and a first photonic coupler that mixes a first input photonic signal received from the first input waveguide and a second input photonic signal received from the second input waveguide to generate a first output photonic signal and a second output photonic signal that are respectively provided to the first output waveguide and the second output waveguide; a second photonic coupler that mixes a third input photonic signal received from the third input waveguide and a fourth input photonic signal received from the fourth input waveguide to generate a third output photonic signal and a fourth output photonic signal that are respectively provided to the third output waveguide and the fourth output waveguide; and a first modulator portion that changes a first amplitude or phase of the first output photonic signal to generate the third input photonic signal that is provided to the second input waveguide, wherein at least one of the first photonic coupler and the second photonic coupler comprises an electro-optic device that determines a mixing ratio of the first input photonic signal and the second input photonic signal, or of the third input photonic signal and the fourth input photonic signal, based on an applied voltage imposed on the first photonic coupler or the second photonic coupler, respectively,
in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 9-11 and 20: These claims would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the latter, either alone or in combination, does not disclose nor render obvious the coupler/method with the claimed first and second input and output waveguides, coupling region and electro-optic device wherein the coupling region further comprises: a first coupling waveguide segment that is optically coupled to the first input waveguide and to the first output waveguide; and a second coupling waveguide segment that is optically coupled to the second input waveguide and the second output waveguide, wherein the first coupling waveguide segment extends along a length direction, which is parallel to an optical propagation direction, and is formed as a first overlap region in which the first terminal, the second terminal, and the dielectric layer are overlapping in a plan view along a thickness direction that is perpendicular to the length direction, wherein the second coupling waveguide segment extends along the length direction and is formed as a second overlap region in which the first terminal, the second terminal, and the dielectric layer are overlapping in the plan view along the thickness direction, and wherein the first coupling waveguide segment and the second coupling waveguide segment are separated from one another along a width direction that is perpendicular to the length direction and the thickness direction,
in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
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 RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights