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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10-11, 13-14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 20210373235).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches:
An optical device (#100 of Fig. 1A, integrated photonic device) comprising:
a first waveguide including a first core (#101 of Fig. 1A, layer, [30]);
a second waveguide spaced apart from the first waveguide and including a second core (#102 of Fig. 1A, layer , [30]) having a refractive index less than a refractive index of the first core ([30 and 42], layers #301, #302, and #303 correspond to layers #101, #102, and #103 respectively); and
a third waveguide including a third core between the first waveguide and the second waveguide (#103 of Fig. 1A, layer, [30]) and having a refractive index less than the refractive index of the first core and greater than the refractive index of the second core ([42] states that the refractive index can be engineered to facilitate efficient coupling, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that using a material for layer #103 with a refractive index not between the indices of layer #101 and #102 would further exacerbate the problems described in [6-7, 61, and 71])
Regarding claim 10, Zhang teaches:
The optical device of claim 1, wherein the third waveguide has a tapered shape [31 and 40]
Regarding claim 11, Zhang teaches:
The optical device of claim 1, further comprising: an amplifier on at least one of the first waveguide or the third waveguide (#101a of Fig. 1a, [24 and 44])
Regarding claim 13, Zhang teaches:
The optical device of claim 1, wherein the first core includes at least one of silicon or a Group III-V semiconductor material (#101 of Fig. 1A, layer, [28]).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang teaches
The optical device of claim 1, wherein the second core includes at least one of silicon nitride, silicon oxide, zinc oxide or titanium oxide. (#102 of Fig. 3A, layer , [27])
Regarding claim 17, Zhang teaches:
An optical integrated circuit comprising: (#100 of Fig. 1A, integrated photonic device)
a substrate (#105 of Fig. 1B, substrate); and
an optical device on the substrate (layers #102-103 of Fig. 1B),
wherein the optical device includes:
a first waveguide including a first core (#101 of Fig. 1A, layer, [30]);
a second waveguide spaced apart from the first waveguide and including a second core (#102 of Fig. 1A, layer , [30]) having a refractive index less than a refractive index of the first core ([30 and 42], layers #301, #302, and #303 correspond to layers #101, #102, and #103 respectively); and
a third waveguide including a third core between the first waveguide and the second waveguide (#103 of Fig. 1A, layer, [30]) and having a refractive index less than the refractive index of the first core and greater than the refractive index of the second core ([42] states that the refractive index can be engineered to facilitate efficient coupling, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that using a material for layer #103 with a refractive index not between the indices of layer #101 and #102 would further exacerbate the problems described in [6-7, 61, and 71])
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.
Claim(s) 2-6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Charlton et al. (US 20030174940).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches:
The optical device of claim 1,
Zhang does not teach:
wherein the refractive index of the third core decreases intermittently and/or continuously from an interface where the third waveguide contacts the first waveguide to an interface where the third waveguide contacts the second waveguide.
However, Charlton teaches:
Varying the refractive index of a waveguide to reduce back reflections caused by changes in refractive index [289-290]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the intermediate waveguide in layer #103 of Zhang with a graded refractive index similar to Charlton with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing coupling efficiency by reducing back reflections.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches:
The optical device of claim 1,
Zhang does not teach:
wherein the third waveguide defines pores inside the third core.
However, Charlton teaches:
Varying the refractive index of a waveguide using pores to reduce back reflections caused by changes in refractive index (Fig. 44b, [289-290])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the intermediate waveguide in layer #103 of Zhang with pores to grade refractive index similar to Charlton with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing coupling efficiency by reducing back reflections.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang, as modified above, teaches:
The optical device of claim 3,
Zhang does not teach:
wherein a density of the pores increases intermittently and/or continuously from an interface where the third waveguide contacts the first waveguide to an interface where the third waveguide contacts the second waveguide.
However, Charlton teaches:
Varying the refractive index of a waveguide intermittently using pores with variable density to reduce back reflections caused by changes in refractive index (Fig. 44b, [289-290])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the intermediate waveguide in layer #103 of Zhang with variable density pores to grade refractive index similar to Charlton with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing coupling efficiency by reducing back reflections.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang, as modified above, teaches:
The optical device of claim 3,
Zhang does not teach:
wherein a size of the pores increases intermittently and/or continuously from an interface where the third waveguide contacts the first waveguide to an interface where the third waveguide contacts the second waveguide.
However, Charlton teaches:
Varying the refractive index of a waveguide intermittently using pores with variable size to reduce back reflections caused by changes in refractive index (Fig. 44a, [289-290])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the intermediate waveguide in layer #103 of Zhang with variable size pores to grade refractive index similar to Charlton with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing coupling efficiency by reducing back reflections.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang, as modified above, teaches:
The optical device of claim 3,
Zhang does not teach:
wherein the pores include at least one of nanopores or micropores.
However, Charlton teaches:
Wherein the pores are nanopores ([155-157] state that the pores have a diameter in the range of 50-200 nm)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the intermediate waveguide in layer #103 of Zhang with pores to grade refractive index similar to Charlton with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing coupling efficiency by reducing back reflections.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches:
The optical device of claim 1,
Zhang does not teach:
wherein the third waveguide further defines pores inside the third core, and the third core includes at least one of silicon nitride or silicon oxide.
However, Charlton teaches:
Varying the refractive index of a waveguide intermittently using pores with variable size to reduce back reflections caused by changes in refractive index [289-290] wherein,
the waveguide includes silicon nitride [155-157]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the intermediate waveguide in layer #103 of Zhang to be a silicon nitride waveguide with pores to grade refractive index similar to Charlton with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing coupling efficiency by reducing back reflections.
Claim(s) 7-8, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Yasaitis (US 20050129366).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches:
The optical device of claim 1,
Zhang does not teach:
wherein the third core includes at least one of silicon nitride or silicon oxide.
However, Yasaitis teaches:
Using layered silicon and silicon nitride to create a graded index coupler (#31 of Fig. 3, silicon nitride, [6, 14-15])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify layer # 103 of Zhang to use layered silicon nitride and silicon similar to Yasaitis with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing coupling efficiency by varying the refractive index of the waveguide from a low refractive index to a high refractive index and reducing back reflections. Charlton teaches that matching the gradually changing refractive index can reduce back reflections (Charlton: [289-290]). Zhang additionally teaches that the coupler can be used to couple a waveguide with a silicon dioxide core to a waveguide with a gallium arsenide core (Zhang: [27-28]). Yasaitis’ invention allows grading between the refractive indices of those materials (Yasaitis, [6 and 14]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang, as modified above, teaches:
The optical device of claim 7,
Zhang does not teach:
wherein at least one of composition ratio of silicon and nitrogen in the silicon nitride or a composition ratio of silicon and oxygen in the silicon oxide varies with a position in the third waveguide.
However, Yasaitis teaches:
Using layered silicon and silicon nitride to create a graded index coupler, wherein the ratio of silicon to silicon nitride varies within the waveguide (#31 of Fig. 3, silicon nitride, [6, 14-15], “the ratios and thickness of the layers are adjusted to provide an effective vertical grading”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify layer # 103 of Zhang to use layered silicon nitride and silicon similar to Yasaitis with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing coupling efficiency by varying the refractive index of the waveguide from a low refractive index to a high refractive index and reducing back reflections. Charlton teaches that matching the gradually changing refractive index can reduce back reflections (Charlton: [289-290]). Zhang additionally teaches that the coupler can be used to couple a waveguide with a silicon dioxide core to a waveguide with a Gallium Arsenide core (Zhang: [27-28]). Yasaitis invention allows grading between the refractive indices of those materials (Yasaitis, [6 and 14]).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang teaches:
The optical device of claim 1, wherein the second core includes Si3N4 (#102 of Fig. 3A, layer , [27]).
Zhang does not teach:
The optical device of claim 1, wherein the first core includes Si,
However, Yasaitis teaches:
Using a pure silicon core waveguide for a laser modulator [7]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify layer #101 of Zhang to be silicon similar to Yasaitis with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of making the waveguide suitable for laser modulation. Zhang acknowledges the possibility of the active region being Silicon and being used as a modulator (Zhang : [24]).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang teaches:
The optical device of claim 1, wherein the second core includes SiO2 (#102 of Fig. 3A, layer , [27]).
Zhang does not teach:
wherein the first core includes Si
However, Yasaitis teaches:
Using a pure silicon core waveguide for a laser modulator [7]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify layer #101 of Zhang to be silicon similar to Yasaitis with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of making the waveguide suitable for laser modulation. Zhang acknowledges the possibility of the active region being Silicon and being used as a modulator (Zhang : [24]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (of claim 1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20160062039 A1), hereafter referred to as Haipeng.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang teaches:
The optical device of claim 1,
Zhang does not teach:
wherein a distance between the first waveguide and the second waveguide is 10μm or more.
However, Haipeng teaches:
Taper lengths of 50 μm, 180 μm and 280 μm for adiabatic mode transfer [28]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the waveguides of Zhang with taper lengths similar to Haipeng with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for efficient adiabatic mode transformation. Zhang teaches that layer 103 may utilize tapers (Zhang: [40]). While the tapers of layers #102 and #103 of Zhang may overlap, decreasing the distance between layers #101 and #102, the dimensions of walls #101b and #103b should be large to provide thermal and alignment tolerances (Zhang: [37]) , thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a longer non overlapping taper to perform adiabatic mode transferring, and would therefore use a distance between layers #101 and #102 on the order of 50 μm to 280 μm.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Seok et al. (US 20220357429).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang teaches:
an optical device including:
a first waveguide including a first core (#101 of Fig. 1A, layer, [30]);
a second waveguide spaced apart from the first waveguide and including a second core (#102 of Fig. 1A, layer , [30]) having a refractive index less than a refractive index of the first core ([30 and 42], layers #301, #302, and #303 correspond to layers #101, #102, and #103 respectively); and
a third waveguide including a third core between the first waveguide and the second waveguide (#103 of Fig. 1A, layer, [30]) and having a refractive index less than the refractive index of the first core and greater than the refractive index of the second core ([42] states that the refractive index can be engineered to facilitate efficient coupling, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that using a material for layer #103 with a refractive index not between the indices of layer #101 and #102 would further exacerbate the problems described in [6-7, 61, and 71])
Zhang does not teach:
A LiDAR device comprising:
a light transmitter configured to irradiate light to an object;
a light receiver configured to receive light reflected from the object;
a processor configured to perform an operation to obtain information about the object from the light received by the light receiver; and
an optical device configured to provide a path for light to travel within the light transmitter and/or the light receiver,
However, Seok teaches:
A LiDAR device (#200 of Fig. 2, LIDAR) comprising:
a light transmitter configured to irradiate light to an object (#204a of Fig. 2, transmit antennas);
a light receiver configured to receive light reflected from the object (#204b of Fig. 2, receive antennas);
a processor configured to perform an operation to obtain information about the object from the light received by the light receiver [56]; and
an optical device configured to provide a path for light to travel within the light transmitter and/or the light receiver (#701 of Fig. 7A, PIC)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the dissimilar material coupler of Zhang into the LIDAR system of Seok with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing increasing the coupling efficiency between the laser and the PIC and enabling the PIC to use efficient waveguide cores.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Seok as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Charlton.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang, as modified above, teaches:
The LiDAR device of claim 18,
Zhang does not teach:
wherein the refractive index of the third core decreases intermittently or continuously from an interface where the third waveguide contacts the first waveguide to an interface where the third waveguide contacts the second waveguide.
However, Charlton teaches:
Varying the refractive index of a waveguide to reduce back reflections caused by changes in refractive index [289-290]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the intermediate waveguide in layer #103 of Zhang with a graded refractive index similar to Charlton with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing coupling efficiency by reducing back reflections.
Regarding claim 20, Zhang, as modified above, teaches:
The LiDAR device of claim 18,
Zhang does not teach:
wherein the third waveguide defines pores inside the third core.
However, Charlton teaches:
Varying the refractive index of a waveguide using pores to reduce back reflections caused by changes in refractive index (Fig. 44b, [289-290])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the intermediate waveguide in layer #103 of Zhang with pores to grade refractive index similar to Charlton with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing coupling efficiency by reducing back reflections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reed et al. (US 20060120667) teaches a similar waveguide setup but with gratings. Kobyakov et al. (US 20170131472) teaches a similar waveguide setup but using the same materials for the first and second waveguides.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIRAJ D SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-9128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/A.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights