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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 01/14/26 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 12/13/23 and 08/14/24, have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO/SB/08a).
Specification
4. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) 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.
8. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (CN 106990563 A).
With respect to claim 1, Lu et al. (figures 1-3) disclose an optical device comprising: a substrate (1); an optical waveguide (2) extending in a first direction on the substrate (1); and a ring resonator (3, 5, 7, 9) adjacent to the optical waveguide (2) in a second direction intersecting the first direction on the substrate (figures 1-2), wherein the ring resonator includes: a first graphene layer (5) and a second graphene layer (7) on the substrate (1); a first insulating layer (91) between the substrate (1) and the first graphene layer (5); a second insulating layer (92) between the first graphene layer (5) and the second graphene layer (7); a first electrode (61) and a second electrode (62) connected to the first graphene layer (5); and a third electrode (83) connected to the second graphene layer (7).
Lu et al. do not explicitly disclose the first graphene layer, the second graphene layer, the first insulating layer, and the second insulating layer have a ring shape or a partially open ring shape.
However, the first graphene layer, the second graphene layer, the first insulating layer, and the second insulating layer having a ring shape or a partially open ring shape are considered to be obvious to provide higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lu et al. with the above features for the purpose of obtaining higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. It is noted that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the figure of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
PNG
media_image1.png
582
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Lu et al. (figures 1-3) disclose the optical device, wherein the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer include a hexagonal boron nitride ([0031]).
Lu do not explicitly disclose junctions of the first and second graphene layers and the first and second insulating layers are a van der Waals heterostructure.
However, junctions of the first and second graphene layers and the first and second insulating layers are a van der Waals heterostructure are considered to be obvious to provide higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lu et al. with the above features for the purpose of obtaining higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. It is noted that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the figure of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to claim 3, Lu et al. (figures 1-3) substantially disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention except a thickness of the first insulating layer is larger than a thickness of the second insulating layer.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lu et al. to form a thickness of the first insulating layer is larger than a thickness of the second insulating layer as claimed, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
With respect to claims 4-5, Lu et al. (figures 1-3) disclose the optical device, wherein the first electrode (61) is connected to one end of the first graphene layer (5), the second electrode (62) is connected to the other end of the first graphene layer (5), and the first electrode and the second electrode are spaced apart from each other (figure 1) and the third electrode (83) is connected to both of one end and the other end of the second graphene layer (7).
Lu et al. do not explicitly disclose the first graphene layer and the second graphene layer have a partially open ring shape.
However, the first graphene layer and the second graphene layer having a partially open ring shape are considered to be obvious to provide higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lu et al. with the above features for the purpose of obtaining higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. It is noted that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the figure of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to claim 6, Lu et al. (figures 1-3) disclose the optical device, wherein the first graphene layer (5) and the second graphene layer (7) are spaced apart from each other with the second insulating layer (92) therebetween.
With respect to claims 7-8, Lu et al. (figures 1-3) substantially disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention except the resonator is provided in plurality.
However, the resonator provided in plurality is considered to be obvious to provide higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lu by reproducing the plurality of the resonators for the purpose of obtaining higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. It is also noted that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With respect to claim 8, Lu et al. (figures 1-3) substantially disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention except the resonators are arranged in a zigzag pattern at both sides of the optical waveguide.
However, the resonators arranged in a zigzag pattern at both sides of the optical waveguide are considered to be obvious to provide higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lu et al. with the above features for the purpose of obtaining higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. It is noted that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the figure of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to claim 9, Lu et al. (figures 1-3) disclose the optical device, wherein sidewalls of the first and second graphene layers (5, 7) and the first and second insulating layers (91, 92) are aligned with each other (see figure 1).
Lu do not explicitly disclose diameters of upper surfaces of the first and second graphene layers and the first and second insulating layers are the same.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lu et al. to form diameters of upper surfaces of the first and second graphene layers and the first and second insulating layers are the same as claimed, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
With respect to claim 10, Lu et al. (figures 1-3) disclose the optical device, wherein the optical device is used as a light source, a photodetector, or an optical modulator by controlling a magnitude, period, and timing of voltage applied to the first to third electrodes of the ring resonator (ring resonator light modulator based on graphene strip travelling wave electrode, wherein, it comprises substrate layer, set on the surface of the substrate layer of the bar-shaped light guide, annular light waveguide and the dielectric fill layer; one side of the annular light guide located on the bar-shaped light guide, the annular light waveguide travelling wave electrode structure is provided with a microstrip, the microstrip line travelling wave electrode structure comprises orderly arranged on the annular light waveguide of the first microstrip line and the second graphene strip from bottom to top; isolated annular light waveguide, a first microstrip line and a second microstrip line of the dielectric layer, the first electrode is connect with the first microstrip line and the second electrode, a first ground electrode respectively connect the two sides of the left and right sides of the first electrode and the second electrode, on the second graphene micro-strip line, the second ground electrode, and a third ground electrode and a fourth ground electrode (specification).
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mazed et al. (US-20190250435-A1) disclose an optical switch. Englund et al. (US-20160161675-A1) disclose the resonant cavity can couple into the graphene layer via evanescent coupling. And Ohira et al. (US-20130259078-A1) disclose an optical resonator.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Doan whose telephone number is (571) 272-2346. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 7:00am to 3:30pm.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874