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 .
Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment and remarks filed May 15, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot regarding claims 1-4 and 9-20. The claims, as amended are taught as below. The new ground of rejection relies on a combination of references and overcomes the items of note specifically challenged in the argument. Arguments regarding newly amended claim 6 are persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: There needs to be a period after the number “13”. 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 7-8 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 7 recites the limitation "via a second" in line 5. There is indefinite because there is no second object claimed. From reading the claim, it appears that the limitation should read “via a second microstrip” and that is how the claim will be interpreted for examination purposes. Further “second microstrip” appears in lines 7-8 and this currently does not have antecedent basis in the claim. Claim 8 also has this antecedent basis issue. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pintus et al., Journal of Lightwave Technology “Micro-ring-Based Optical Isolator and Circulator with Integrated Electromagner for Silicon Photonics”, from hereinafter “Pintus”, and further in view of Schaffner et al. (US Patent No. 5,208,697, from hereinafter “Schaffner”).
Regarding claim 1, Pintus discloses an optical modulator (current induced magnetic field modulated magneto-optic devices for silicon photonics; Conclusion, page 1435) comprising: a first optical waveguide including an input port configured to receive an unmodulated optical signal and an output port (an optical isolator using a waveguide having an input and output as shown in figure 1a propagates a light signal, e.g., a non-modulated laser signal; figure 1; section III, page 1432; page IIIA, page 1433); a magneto-optical layer located adjacent to the first optical waveguide, wherein optical attributes of the magneto-optical layer vary in relation to a magnetic field (a magneto-optic garnet layer is bonded on a SOI wafer having a first patterned waveguide and an external magnetic field induces a nonreciprocal phase shift effect in the magneto-optic Ce:YIG garnet layer; figures 1a,b; sections II, IIB, page 1430); and a conductive layer located in close proximity to a portion of the magneto-optical layer located adjacent to the first optical waveguide, wherein current injected to the conductive layer generates a magnetic field oriented perpendicular to a direction of propagation of light within the first optical waveguide (a silicon layer is conductive and the magneto-optic Ce:YIG gamet layer is bonded onto the silicon-on-insulator SOI wafer having patterned first waveguides, wherein injected current induces a magnetic field using the Voigt configuration such that the magnetic field is perpendicular to the propagating direction of light which exhibits a different phase velocity according to the propagation direction, therefore achieving the nonreciprocal phase shift effect; figures 1a,b, 5a; section I, page 1429; sections I, II, page 1430; section IIC, page 1431).
Regarding claim 1, Pintus fails to specifically disclose that the conductive layer comprises a microstrip configured to carry a radio-frequency signal to rapidly modulate a phase shift of light propagating in the first optical waveguide and also wherein the conductive layer is configured as a coupled microwave-waveguide to modulate the unmodulated optical signal.
Schaffner discloses a microstrip line 38 and that a modulator (10) is mounted on a block (70) of magnetically loaded epoxide material which absorbs spurious resonant microwave emissions, and enables the modulator (10) to operate with smooth frequency response over a wide range of microwave input frequencies (i.e. well known radio frequency). Schaffner also discloses a microwave-waveguide (a coplanar waveguide 24 for coupling an input microwave frequency electrical signal to the optical waveguide 14 to modulate the optical signal; see figures 1-3; abstract, column 4, lines 28-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a microstrip and a microwave frequency waveguide as taught by Schaffner within the device as disclosed by Pintus in order to enable the modulator to operate with smooth frequency response over a wide range of microwave input frequencies (see Schaffner Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Pintus discloses the optical modulator of claim 1, further comprising a micro-ring optically coupled to the first optical waveguide, the microring configured to modulate the unmodulated optical signal (a silicon microring resonator is fabricated on a SOI wafer including a fully etched silicon waveguide as shown in figure 1, wherein the integrated optical device current induced magnetic field can be switched and modulated; figure 1a,b; section IIB, page 1430; section V, page 1435).
Regarding claim 3, Pintus discloses the optical modulator of claim 2, wherein a cross-section of the microring is vertically discontinuous (as shown in figure 1a, a silicon microring resonator is fabricated on a SOI wafer, and the microring is bonded with a Ce:YIG garnet grown on a substituted gadolinium gallium garnet SGGG wherein the remaining space is filled by air, the stacked layers thus depicted as vertically discontinuous in the air filled space cross sectional view shown in figure 1b; figure 1a,b; section II B, page 1430).
Regarding claim 4, Pintus discloses the optical modulator of any one of claims 2-3, wherein the conductive layer comprises conductive tabs and a conductive ring, wherein the conductive ring is positioned adjacent to the microring (in a fully etched silicon waveguide design, the conductive silicon layer is patterned to include tabs and the ring in an aligned integrated chip device fabrication as shown in figure 1; figure 1a,b; section II, IIB, page 1430).
Regarding claim 5, Pintus discloses the optical modulator of claim 1, wherein the conductive layer is configured as a coupled waveguide to modulate the unmodulated optical signal (a silicon layer is a conductive layer of the SOI wafer having patterned waveguides coupled via induced magnetic field using the Voigt configuration, the fabricated optical isolator as shown in figure 1a propagates a light signal, e.g., a non-modulated laser signal; figures 1a,b; sections I, II, page 1430; section III, page 1432).
However, Pintus fails to specifically teach a microwave-waveguide.
Schaffner discloses a microwave-waveguide (a coplanar waveguide 24 for coupling an input microwave frequency electrical signal to the optical waveguide 14 to modulate the optical signal; figures 1-3; column 4, lines 28-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a microwave frequency waveguide as taught by Schaffner within the device as disclosed by Pintus in order to enable the modulator to operate with smooth frequency response over a wide range of microwave input frequencies (see Schaffner Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Pintus teaches that the optical modulator comprises a first magneto-optic material and a second magneto-optic material different from the first magneto-optic material (see page 1430, section IIB).
Regarding claim 10, Pintus teaches wherein the magneto optic material is cerium substituted yttrium iron garnet (Ce:YIG) (see page 1430, section IIB). Although Pintus teaches SGGG instead of GGG, it is well known in the art that SGGG is an art recognized equivalent and can be used with similar results.
Regarding claim 11, Pintus teaches that the first optical waveguide 11 is positioned on an insulating layer (resonator is fabricated on an SOI wafer, see page 1430, section IIB).
Regarding claim 12, Pintus teaches wherein the insulating layer is positioned on a silicon substrate (resonator is fabricated on an SOI wafer, see page 1430, section IIB).
Regarding claim 13, Pintus teaches wherein the output port is configured to output a modulated optical signal (see page 1433).
Regarding claim 14, Pintus teaches wherein the optical modulator operates in a transverse electric (TE) mode (see page 1435, Conclusion).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 6 is not taught by the best prior art of record cited as argued in the applicants’ arguments on pages 2-4 which are persuasive. Claims 7-8 would be allowable art wise based on their dependence on claim 6 but need to be corrected to overcome the 112 issue.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA M CAPUTO whose telephone number is (571)272-2388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST.
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.
/LISA M CAPUTO/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
