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 October 26, 2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on October 26, 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 does not end in a period as required.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 and 15 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.
With respect to claims 7 and 15, the language “using deep reactive ion etching optionally followed by wet etching, preferably using cryo-etching or using Bosch etching followed by wet etching” (claim 7) and “deep reactive ion etching, preferably cryo-etching or Bosch etching” (claim 15) renders the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained in view of the optional or preferably (or both) language present. Is it truly optional? Is it optional if it’s preferable? For purposes of this office action, anything after either word “optionally” or “preferably” is interpreted as being optional and not required and not further limiting. Appropriate correction should be made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Budd et al. (US Patent 8,755,644, hereinafter referred to as Budd). Budd anticipates claims:
1. An integrated optical waveguide formed in a substrate, the integrated optical waveguide comprising:
a hole (annular via comprising 20 and 20’ is interpreted as the hole, see figure 2C) extending in an axial direction of the substrate (silicon 21 is interpreted as the substrate), and
a core (silicon post 22 is interpreted as the core) arranged in the hole, the core extending in the axial direction, having a first refractive index (it’s silicon), and having a sidewall which is at least partly surrounded by a surrounding material (cladding 24 is interpreted as the surrounding material) having a second refractive index which is lower than the first refractive index and such that a refractive index difference between the first refractive index and the second refractive index allows to guide light within the core (see column 3, lines 64-67),
wherein the core is made of the same material as the substrate, and
the integrated optical waveguide further comprises one or more bridges extending
from the sidewall of the core to a sidewall of the hole (see figure 2c, the bridge extends between the sidewalls as required).
2. The integrated optical waveguide according to claim 1, wherein the one or more bridges are made of the same material as the substrate (see figure 2c).
3. The integrated optical waveguide according to claim 1, wherein one or more of the sidewalls of the core, the hole, and the one or more bridges are tapered sidewalls which include a section which is oblique to the axial direction (see figure 5e to see this via shape).
4. The integrated optical waveguide according to claim 1, wherein the surrounding material includes a cladding (24) covering one or more of the sidewalls of the hole, the core, and the one or more bridges.
5. The integrated optical waveguide according to claim 1, wherein an axial length of one
or more of the one or more bridges is shorter than an axial length the core (see figure 2c)
6. The integrated optical waveguide according to claim 1, wherein the hole, the core, or the hole and the core have an oblique cylinder form (see figure 2c).
9. A photonic integrated circuit, comprising:
the integrated optical waveguide according to claim 1, and
a planar optical waveguide arranged on one of the one or more
bridges extending from the substrate to the core (see figure 2c; the bridge is interpreted as a silicon planar waveguide).
10. The photonic integrated circuit according to claim 9, wherein the planar optical waveguide is terminated by a coupler on top of the core (see figure 2c, the planar optical waveguide is interpreted as being on top of the core when viewed upside-down, and is terminated by an optical coupler face where light is emitted).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 8, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budd.
With respect to claims 7, and 12-15, Budd discloses:
An integrated optical waveguide formed in a substrate, the integrated optical waveguide comprising:
a hole (annular via comprising 20 and 20’ is interpreted as the hole, see figure 2C) extending in an axial direction of the substrate (silicon 21 is interpreted as the substrate), and
a core (silicon post 22 is interpreted as the core) arranged in the hole, the core extending in the axial direction, having a first refractive index (it’s silicon), and having a sidewall which is at least partly surrounded by a surrounding material (cladding 24 is interpreted as the surrounding material) having a second refractive index which is lower than the first refractive index and such that a refractive index difference between the first refractive index and the second refractive index allows to guide light within the core (see column 3, lines 64-67),
wherein the core is made of the same material as the substrate, and
the integrated optical waveguide further comprises one or more bridges extending
from the sidewall of the core to a sidewall of the hole (see figure 2c, the bridge extends between the sidewalls as required).
Budd further discloses etching to create the elements (see column 3, lines 59-60).
Budd is silent to the etching being anisotropic plasma process, wherein the method further comprises providing the surrounding material including a material deposited by plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition, or deposited by low pressure chemical vapor deposition, or deposited by physical vapor deposition, or grown by thermal oxidation; including one or both of the-steps: -etching the one or more bridges in order to provide a planar optical
waveguide on the one or more bridges and etching the core in a manner to diffractively structure a surface of the core in order to provide a coupler configured for coupling an optical signal into the integrated optical waveguide, or wherein the etching is performed by crystal orientation dependent etching or deep reactive ion etching; wherein a roughness of one or more of the sidewalls of the hole, the core, and the one or more bridges is reduced by: using crystal orientation dependent etching, or using deep reactive ion etching.
However, the examiner takes official notice that all these methods are well known in the semiconductor manufacturing arts, including for use in the formation of integrated optical waveguides, and are beneficially used, being standard manufacturing techniques, because they’re routine to implement to create the desired devices. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the device as shown in Budd using these routinely used manufacturing techniques because they’re fast, effective and cost effective.
With respect to claim 8, Budd discloses the limitations of claim 1 as previously stated. Budd is silent to an impedance matching layer is arranged on top of the core. The examiner takes official notice that the use of antireflective coatings, which are a type of impedance matching layer, are often used at optical interfaces to reduce noise caused by unwanted optical reflections. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an antireflective coating, as are known in the art, on top of the core, to reduce noise caused by unwanted reflections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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 closest prior art to the claims, Budd, fails to disclose combination of elements as recited in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M BEDTELYON whose telephone number is (571)270-1290. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 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.
/John Bedtelyon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874