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 Amendment
Claims 1 and 4-6 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said conductive element" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes "said conductive element" will be interpreted as "said at least one conductive element" as described in claim 1.
Claims 2-13 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the conductive element" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes "the conductive element" will be interpreted as "said at least one conductive element" as described in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the conductive element" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes "the conductive element" will be interpreted as "said at least one conductive element" as described in claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the conductive element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes "the conductive element" will be interpreted as "said at least one conductive element" as described in claim 1.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitzer et al. (US 5715337 A) in view of Khilo (WO 2017115279 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Spitzer discloses in at least figures 13-14, an opto-mechanical structure (optical micro-electro mechanical elements such as cantilevers, mirrors, or lenses arrayed in a switching matrix. In one embodiment shown in plan view in FIG. 13 col. 15 lines 22-25) including:
a substrate (substrate 112 fig. 13 shown as substate in fig. 14) extending along a plane (the substrate 112 extends along the YZ plane as shown below in fig. 13);
a support element (insulator fig. 14) arranged on (the insulator is arranged on the substrate fig. 14) the substrate (substrate 112 fig. 13 shown as substate in fig. 14);
at least one conductive element (contact pads 128 and 130 fig. 14) adapted to create an electric field (electric potential is applied between contacts 128 and 130 col. 13 lines 7-8) oriented perpendicularly (the electric potential is applied between contacts 128 and 130 is along the x direction perpendicular to the YZ plane as shown below in fig. 13) to the plane (YZ plane as shown below in fig. 13) of the substrate (substrate 112 fig. 13 shown as substate in fig. 14);
an opto-mechanical resonator (piezoelectric cantilever waveguide device 120 fig. 14) including:
a mechanically movable element (a bending motion results in piezoelectric material layer 122 thus deflecting waveguide 107 col. 13 lines 8-9) made of a piezoelectric material (piezoelectric material 122 fig. 14) and arranged on (the piezoelectric material 122 is arranged a one of the layers on the insulator fig. 14) the support element (insulator fig. 14), the piezoelectric material (piezoelectric material 122 fig. 14) being chosen so that the electric field created (electric potential is applied between contacts 128 and 130 col. 13 lines 7-8) by the conductive element (contact pads 128 and 130 fig. 14) when the same is subjected to an electric potential causes a displacement of said mechanically movable element (contact pad 128 is in electrical contact with piezoelectric material layer 122 through contact via 132 as shown. By applying an electric potential between contacts 128 and 130, a bending motion results in piezoelectric material layer 122 thus deflecting waveguide 107 col. 13 lines 5-9);
an optical resonator (waveguide 107 fig. 14) coupled to (the waveguide 107 is coupled to the piezoelectric material layer 122 fig. 14) the mechanically movable element (a bending motion results in piezoelectric material layer 122 thus deflecting waveguide 107 col. 13 lines 8-9);
said at least one conductive element (contact pads 128 and 130 fig. 14) being located above (the contact pads 128 and 130 are above the piezoelectric material layer 122 fig. 14) or below (not required by claim) said mechanically movable element (a bending motion results in piezoelectric material layer 122 thus deflecting waveguide 107 col. 13 lines 8-9), at a non-zero distance (the insulator layer 126 is between the contact pad 128 and the piezoelectric material layer 122 fig. 14) from said mechanically movable element (a bending motion results in piezoelectric material layer 122 thus deflecting waveguide 107 col. 13 lines 8-9), said conductive element (contact pads 128 and 130 fig. 14) and said mechanically movable element (a bending motion results in piezoelectric material layer 122 thus deflecting waveguide 107 col. 13 lines 8-9) having at least one surface facing each other (the contact pads 128, 130 and the piezoelectric material layer 122 face each other in the Z direction as shown below in fig. 14 ).
PNG
media_image1.png
365
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
367
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Spitzer does not disclose, wherein the optical resonator is a gallery mode resonator, a phoxonic crystal or a waveguide travelling along the periphery of a central structure.
However Khilo discloses in at least figure 1, the waveguide (ring 115 fig. 1) travelling along the periphery (the ring 115 is along the periphery of the disk 110 fig. 1) of a central structure (disk 110 fig. 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a periphery waveguide as taught by Khilo in the opto-mechanical structure of Spitzer. The transmitted light 126 oscillating in the ring 115 is substantially optically isolated from the disk 110. The optical oscillations within the ring 115 are facilitated, at least in part, by the formation of a region that has a lower refractive index than the disk 110. In some embodiments, this is accomplished when the ring 115 and the extensions 120 form the grating 130 that may be a segmented waveguide (paragraph [039]).
Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Spitzer and Khilo discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Spitzer further discloses, wherein the conductive element (contact pads 128 and 130 fig. 14) is a microwave resonator (not required by claim) or an electrode (an electric potential is applied between contacts 128 and 130 col. 13 lines 7-8).
Regarding Claim 6, The combination of Spitzer and Khilo discloses all the limitations of claim 1..
Spitzer does not disclose, wherein the opto-mechanical resonator comprises the waveguide travelling along the periphery of the central structure, the waveguide being connected to the central structure through anchors, part of the waveguide forming the mechanically movable element.
However Khilo discloses in at least figure 1, the waveguide (ring 115 fig. 1) travelling along the periphery (the ring 115 is along the periphery of the disk 110 fig. 1) of a central structure (disk 110 fig. 1) the waveguide (ring 115 fig. 1) being connected to (the ring 115 is coupled to the disk 110 using the extensions 120 paragraph [039]) the central structure (disk 110 fig. 1) through anchors (extensions 120 fig. 1), part of the waveguide (ring 115 fig. 1) forming the (the ring 115 is part of the micro ring resonator 100 fig. 1) mechanically movable element (the suspended micro-ring resonator may move due to, for example, mechanical, electrical, or optical forces paragraph [052]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a periphery waveguide as taught by Khilo in the opto-mechanical structure of Spitzer. The transmitted light 126 oscillating in the ring 115 is substantially optically isolated from the disk 110. The optical oscillations within the ring 115 are facilitated, at least in part, by the formation of a region that has a lower refractive index than the disk 110. In some embodiments, this is accomplished when the ring 115 and the extensions 120 form the grating 130 that may be a segmented waveguide (paragraph [039]).
Regarding Claim 7, The combination of Spitzer and Khilo discloses all the limitations of claim 6 and Spitzer further discloses, wherein the conductive element (contact pads 128 and 130 fig. 14) comprises a plurality of electrodes (contact pads 128 and 130 fig. 14), said plurality of electrodes (contact pads 128 and 130 fig. 14, an electric potential is applied between contacts 128 and 130 col. 13 lines 7-8) being at least partly situated facing (contact pads 128 and 130 face the piezoelectric material layer 122 in the z direction as shown below in fig. 14) the mechanically movable element (a bending motion results in piezoelectric material layer 122 thus deflecting waveguide 107 col. 13 lines 8-9).
PNG
media_image2.png
367
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Spitzer et al. (US 5715337 A) in view of Khilo (WO 2017115279 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above and in further view of Langlois et al. (US 10510945 B1).
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Spitzer and Khilo discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Spitzer further discloses, comprising at least two conductive elements (contact pads 128 and 130 fig. 14), and a second conductive element (contact pad 128 fig. 14) located above (the contact pads 128 and 130 are above the piezoelectric material layer 122 fig. 14) the mechanically movable element (a bending motion results in piezoelectric material layer 122 thus deflecting waveguide 107 col. 13 lines 8-9).
Spitzer does not disclose, a first conductive element located below the mechanically movable element.
However Langlois discloses in at least figure 13, a first conductive element (electrode 9215 fig. 13) located below (the electrode 9215 is located below the cantilever 9241 fig. 13) the mechanically movable element (cantilever 9241 fig. 13).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use an electrode below the movable element as taught by Langlois in the opto-mechanical structure of Spitzer. The stationary actuation electrode 9215 and the movable actuation electrode 9216 can be aligned to maximize an electric field between these electrodes (col. 15 lines 7-9).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Spitzer et al. (US 5715337 A) in view of Khilo (WO 2017115279 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Eichenfield et al. (US 12112236 B1).
Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Spitzer and Khilo discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Spitzer does not explicitly disclose, wherein the optical resonator is the phoxonic crystal, and the mechanically movable element and the optical resonator are formed by the phoxonic crystal.
However Eichenfield discloses in at least figure 3, wherein the optical resonator (optical input/output waveguide 150 fig. 3) is the phoxonic crystal (optomechanical crystal resonator 110 fig. 3), and the mechanically movable element (the piezoelectric transducer 130 fig. 3) and the optical resonator (optical input/output waveguide 150 fig. 3) are formed by the phoxonic crystal (optomechanical crystal resonator 110 fig. 3).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a phoxonic crystal as taught by Eichenfield in the opto-mechanical structure of Spitzer. The physical design variables for the optomechanical crystal resonator 110 that enable its optical and mechanical tuning include, but are not limited to, the width and thickness of the beam that forms the optomechanical crystal resonator 110, the size, pitch, and location of the apertures within the optomechanical crystal resonator 110, and the material used to form the optomechanical crystal resonator 110 (col. 10 lines 43-50).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Spitzer et al. (US 5715337 A) in view of Khilo (WO 2017115279 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Otugen et al. (US 20210255213 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, The combination of Spitzer and Khilo discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Spitzer does not disclose, wherein the optical resonator is the gallery mode resonator, the mechanically movable element being integrated into the optical resonator.
However Otugen discloses in at least figure 1A, wherein the optical resonator (whispering-gallery-mode-based optical resonator 104 fig. 1A) is the gallery mode resonator (whispering-gallery-mode-based optical resonator 104 paragraph [0035]), the mechanically movable element (movement of the optical sensor 100 paragraph [0035]) being integrated into (the optical sensor 100 includes the whispering-gallery-mode-based optical resonator 104 fig. 1A) the optical resonator (whispering-gallery-mode-based optical resonator 104 fig. 1A).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a gallery mode resonator in the opto-mechanical structure of Spitzer. The shift of the whispering gallery mode creates nulls or dips in the light transmitted through the waveguide or optical fiber 108 resulting in laser light 136b (paragraph [0035]).
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitzer et al. (US 5715337 A) in view of Khilo (WO 2017115279 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Piehl (US 20040217919 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, The combination of Spitzer and Khilo discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Spitzer further discloses, a method for manufacturing a structure (optical micro-electro mechanical elements such as cantilevers, mirrors, or lenses arrayed in a switching matrix. In one embodiment shown in plan view in FIG. 13 col. 15 lines 22-25) according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above),
a step of forming a movable element in a piezoelectric material (a bending motion results in piezoelectric material layer 122 thus deflecting waveguide 107 col. 13 lines 8-9).
Spitzer does not disclose, a step of depositing a layer of a first material onto the substrate,
comprising, from a semiconductor substrate:
a step of depositing a second material onto the layer of first material and onto the movable
element;
a step of forming a conductive element in the layer of second material, and
a step of isotropically etching the layer of first material and the layer of second material so as to
release the movable element.
However, Piehl discloses in at least figures 7A-7CA method for manufacturing a structure
according to claim 1, comprising, from a semiconductor substrate (MEMS are generally semiconductor
chips paragraph [0087]):
a step of depositing a layer of a first material (layer 702 fig. 7 A) onto the substrate (a layer 702
is deposited over and makes contact with this substrate at the locations indicated by the reference
number 708 paragraph [0088]);
a step of depositing a second material onto (sacrificial material 704 fig. 7 A) the layer of first
material (layer 702 fig. 7 A) and onto the movable element (a sacrificial material 704 is deposited over
the movable components of the device 100, including the flexure 110, the reflective layers 102 and 104
that define the optical cavity 106, and the spring mechanism 112 paragraph [0088]);
a step of forming a conductive element (reflective layer 102 is conductive and a voltage is
applied paragraph [0022]) in the layer (reflective layer 102 is formed sacrificial material 704 fig. 7 A) of
second material (sacrificial material 704 fig. 7 A), and
a step of isotropically etching (openings 706 are patterned and etched in the layer 702 and
isotropically etching away the sacrificial material 704 paragraph [0088]) the layer of first material (layer
702 fig. 7 A) and the layer of second material (sacrificial material 704 fig. 7 A) so as to release (the device
100 is released by isotropically etching paragraph [0088]) the movable element (the movable
components of the device 100, including the flexure 110, the reflective layers 102 and 104 that define
the optical cavity 106, and the spring mechanism 112 are part of the device 100 paragraph [0088]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use isotropically etching to release the movable elements as taught by Piehl in the
optical micro-electro mechanical element of Spitzer. The release operation occurs inside a protective cavity to increase yield and once the cavities are sealed, the die can be sawed off without damaging the device 100 (paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Spitzer, Kilo and Piehl discloses all the limitations
of claim 8, and Spitzer further discloses, wherein the structure (optical micro-electro mechanical elements such as cantilevers, mirrors, or lenses arrayed in a switching matrix. In one embodiment shown in plan view in FIG. 13 col. 15 lines 22-25) includes a first conductive element (contact pad 128 fig. 14) and a second conductive element (contact pad 130 fig. 14).
Spitzer does not disclose, the method including, before the step of depositing a layer of a
first material onto the substrate, a step of making a first conductive element at the substrate, the
conductive element in the layer of second material forming the second conductive element.
However, Piehl further discloses, the method including, before the step of depositing a layer of a
first material (layer 702 fig. 7A) onto the substrate (a layer 702 is deposited over and makes contact with
this substrate at the locations indicated by the reference number 708 paragraph [0088]),
a step of making a first conductive element (reflective layer 104 is conductive and a voltage is
applied paragraph [0022]) at the substrate (the bottom reflector 104 is a high-reflectance metallic
substrate paragraph [0034]),
the conductive element (reflective layer 102 is conductive and a voltage is applied paragraph
[0022]) in the layer of second material (sacrificial material 704 fig. 7A) forming the second conductive
element (reflective layer 102 is conductive and a voltage is applied paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use isotropically etching material to contain a conductive element as taught by
Piehl in the Optical micro-electro mechanical element of Spitzer. The release operation occurs inside a protective cavity to increase yield and once the cavities are sealed, the die can be sawed off without damaging the device 100 (paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Spitzer, Kilo and Piehl discloses all the limitations of claim 8, and Spitzer further discloses, wherein the optical resonator (piezoelectric cantilever waveguide device 120 fig. 14) is made using an element distinct from (the piezoelectric cantilever waveguide device 120 also includes a substate and insulator not included in the piezoelectric material layer 122 fig. 14) the movable element (a bending motion results in piezoelectric material layer 122 thus deflecting waveguide 107 col. 13 lines 8-9) and the step of forming a movable element (a bending motion results in piezoelectric material layer 122 thus deflecting waveguide 107 col. 13 lines 8-9) also comprises (the piezoelectric material layer 122 is part of the piezoelectric cantilever waveguide device 120 fig. 14) forming an optical resonator (piezoelectric cantilever waveguide device 120 fig. 14).
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Spitzer and Khilo discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses, a method for manufacturing a structure (optical micro-electro mechanical elements such as cantilevers, mirrors, or lenses arrayed in a switching matrix. In one embodiment shown in plan view in FIG. 13 col. 15 lines 22-25) according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Spitzer does not disclose, a step of depositing a layer of a first material onto the substrate,
a step of forming a movable element in a piezoelectric material, comprising, from a semiconductor substrate:
a step of depositing a second material onto the layer of first material and onto the movable
element;
a step of forming a conductive element in the layer of second material, and
a step of isotropically etching the layer of first material and the layer of second material so as to
release the movable element.
However, Piehl discloses in at least figures 7A-7CA method for manufacturing a structure
according to claim 1, comprising, from a semiconductor substrate (MEMS are generally semiconductor
a step of depositing a layer of a first material (layer 702 fig. 7 A) onto the substrate (a layer 702
is deposited over and makes contact with this substrate at the locations indicated by the reference
number 708 paragraph [0088]);
a step of depositing a second material onto (sacrificial material 704 fig. 7 A) the layer of first
material (layer 702 fig. 7 A) and onto the movable element (a sacrificial material 704 is deposited over
the movable components of the device 100, including the flexure 110, the reflective layers 102 and 104
that define the optical cavity 106, and the spring mechanism 112 paragraph [0088]);
a step of forming a conductive element (reflective layer 102 is conductive and a voltage is
applied paragraph [0022]) in the layer (reflective layer 102 is formed sacrificial material 704 fig. 7 A) of
second material (sacrificial material 704 fig. 7 A), and
a step of isotropically etching (openings 706 are patterned and etched in the layer 702 and
isotropically etching away the sacrificial material 704 paragraph [0088]) the layer of first material (layer
702 fig. 7 A) and the layer of second material (sacrificial material 704 fig. 7 A) so as to release (the device
100 is released by isotropically etching paragraph [0088]) the movable element (the movable
components of the device 100, including the flexure 110, the reflective layers 102 and 104 that define
the optical cavity 106, and the spring mechanism 112 are part of the device 100 paragraph [0088]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use isotropically etching to release the movable elements as taught by Piehl in the
Optical micro-electro mechanical element of Spitzer. The release operation occurs inside a protective cavity to increase yield and once the cavities are sealed, the die can be sawed off without damaging the device 100 (paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Spitzer, Kilo and Piehl discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Spitzer does not disclose, wherein, during the isotropic etching step, the layer of the first
material is also etched so as to release the conductive element.
However, Piehl further discloses, during the isotropic etching step (openings 706 are patterned
and etched in the layer 702 and isotropically etching away the sacrificial material 704 paragraph [0088]),
the layer of the first material (layer 702 fig. 7 A) is also etched so as to release (the device 100 is
released by isotropically etching paragraph [0088]) the conductive element (the reflector 102 is part of
the device 100 paragraph [0088]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use isotropically etching to release the movable elements as taught by Piehl in the
Optical micro-electro mechanical element of Spitzer. The release operation occurs inside a protective cavity to increase yield and once the cavities are sealed, the die can be sawed off without damaging the device 100 (paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Spitzer, Kilo and Piehl discloses all the limitations of claim 11 and Spitzer further discloses, wherein the optical resonator (piezoelectric cantilever waveguide device 120 fig. 14) is made using an element distinct from (the piezoelectric cantilever waveguide device 120 also includes a substate and insulator not included in the piezoelectric material layer 122 fig. 14) the movable element (piezoelectric material layer 122 fig. 14) and the step of forming a movable element (piezoelectric material layer 122 fig. 14) also comprises (the piezoelectric material layer 122 is part of the piezoelectric cantilever waveguide device 120 fig. 14) forming an optical resonator (piezoelectric cantilever waveguide device 120 fig. 14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhave (US 20200284584 A1) discloses a MEMS rotation rate sensor with a wrap around waveguide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R WRIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-5822. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30-5 Friday 8-12.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 1-571-270-1284. 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.
/ANDREW R WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
