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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the form” should read “a form”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the waveguide core” should read “the waveguide coil”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the total number” should read “a total number” and “the area” should read “an area”. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is invited to correct any other grammatical issues.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 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:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein the sub-wavelength structure comprises a grating, and wherein the periodicity of the grating depends on a wavelength of light propagating within the waveguide coil or wherein the sub-wavelength structure comprises a structure representing a photonic crystal, with periodic trenches deep-etched through an upper portion of the cladding material past the waveguide core and extending deep into a lower portion of the cladding material in the longitudinal direction.
The closest relevant prior art of record, Dawes (U.S. PG Pub. # 2005/0185879 A1) in view of Puckett (2019/0258004 A1), teaches materials such as metal or air (‘004, pars. 0060, 0062 as filling 82 is optional, and a sub-wavelength structure is interpreted as an atom of the metal or air, as the dimensions of the structure nor the wavelength has been disclosed), but fails to teach or suggest that the sub-wavelength structure is a grating or photonic crystal as claimed.
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.
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dawes (U.S. PG Pub. # 2005/0185879 A1).
In Re claim 1, ‘879 teaches a method of manufacturing an integrated photonics chip, the method comprising: fabricating a waveguide coil (306) that encloses a central area (the middle area of loop 306), wherein the waveguide coil comprises a plurality of waveguide turns (304) looping around the central area, and each waveguide turn is parallel to adjacent waveguide turns (figs. 3A and 3B); and introducing a structural modification (302) on either side of each waveguide turn to reduce crosstalk between the adjacent waveguide turns (cladding has a lower refractive index than the core thus the signals are better confined to the core thus reducing crosstalk, claim 2).
In Re claim 19, ‘879 teaches using the waveguide coil as a rotational sensing element of an optical gyroscope (par. 0029).
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 – 13 and 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawes (U.S. PG Pub. # 2005/0185879 A1) in view of Puckett (2019/0258004 A1).
In Re claims 1 – 13 and 16 – 17, ‘879 teaches a method of manufacturing an integrated photonics chip, the method comprising: fabricating a waveguide coil (306) that encloses a central area (middle area of 306), wherein the waveguide coil comprises a plurality of waveguide turns (304) looping around the central area, and each waveguide turn is parallel to adjacent waveguide turns (figs. 3A and 3B), and a cladding material (302).
‘879 is silent to introducing a structural modification on either side of each waveguide turn to reduce crosstalk between the adjacent waveguide turns;
the structural modification introduced on either side of each waveguide turn reduces a pitch between the adjacent waveguide turns without increasing crosstalk between the adjacent waveguide turns;
wherein reducing the pitch between the adjacent waveguide turns increases a total number of waveguide turns that can be fabricated within a predetermined area of the integrated photonics chip, wherein the predetermined area includes the waveguide coil and the central area enclosed by the waveguide coil;
calculating a dimension of the predetermined area based on an exposure field of a reticle used to fabricate the waveguide coil with the plurality of waveguide turns;
wherein the waveguide core and cladding comprises silicon nitride and oxide, respectively.
‘004 teaches a structural modification, a discontinuity, gap, deep trench as claimed (figs. 8 or 12, items 16, 63 or 82, metal or air, which contains gases such as nitrogen, pars. 0060, 0062 as filling 82 is optional and a sub-wavelength structure is interpreted as an atom of the metal, as the dimensions of the structure nor the wavelength has been disclosed) to reduce cross-talk between waveguides (20,24) (par. 0028), wherein the core is silicon nitride (par. 0026) and the cladding is an oxide () and teaches that waveguides spaced apart by large distances do not have the issues of signal leakage affecting adjacent waveguides, but that waveguides spaced by small distances do have issues with signal leakage affecting adjacent waveguides (pars. 0004 – 0008); wherein the waveguide core and cladding comprises silicon nitride and oxide, respectively (pars. 0039 – 0041).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘879 to insert structural modifications as taught by ‘004 between the waveguide turns of 304 so as to reduce any possible cross-talk between waveguide turns thus ensuring a more accurate gyroscope whereby each waveguide turn pitch between adjacent waveguide turns will be reduced without increasing crosstalk between the adjacent waveguide turns; wherein the waveguide core and cladding comprises silicon nitride and oxide, respectively, as a means to guide as much optical energy within the core as possible, wherein reducing the pitch between the adjacent waveguide turns increases a total number of waveguide turns that will be fabricated within the area of the integrated photonics chip (figs. 3A – 4), wherein the area includes the waveguide coil and the central area enclosed by the waveguide coil as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claim 18, the previous combination teaches the method of claim 17, and ‘879 teaches using photolithographic processes to form the waveguides (par. 0025, 0027), but is silent to calculating a dimension of the predetermined area based on an exposure field of a reticle used to fabricate the waveguide coil with the plurality of waveguide turns.
However, it is well known in the art to use a reticle in a photolithographic process to form optical waveguides.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate a dimension of the predetermined area based on an exposure field of a reticle, as the photolithographic process of ‘879, used to fabricate the waveguide coil with the plurality of waveguide turns so as to ensure that the waveguides fit within the boundaries of the chip as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claims 19 and 20, ‘879 teaches using the waveguide coil as a rotational sensing element of an optical gyroscope (par. 0029); wherein a sensitivity of the rotational sensing element depends on the total number of waveguide turns in the waveguide coil as well as on the area of the central area enclosed by the waveguide coil (inherently sensitively is based on the area and number of turns as claimed as evidenced by Dyott (U.S. Patent # 5,552,887) col. 5, lines 40 – 48).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874