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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the amendments to the claims and the new grounds of rejection below.
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, 6, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei Bi et al (“Fabrication and characterization of As2S3/Y3Fe5O12 and Y3Fe5O12/SOI strip-loaded waveguides for integrated optical isolator applications”, as attached in IDS dated 12/27/2024, “Lei”) in view of Leitz et al (US Publication No.: US 2010/0270653 A1, “Leitz”).
Regarding Claim 1, Lei in view of Leitz a magneto-optic thin film (description discloses: “We report two novel strategies to integrate magneto-optical oxides on oxidized silicon and SOI platforms based on strip-loaded waveguide structures”), comprising:
A substrate (description discloses: “In this study, we report the integration of a polycrystalline YIG film on oxidized silicon and SOI substrates using As 2S 3/YIG and YIG/SOI strip-loaded structures);
A diffusion barrier layer disposed on the substrate and comprising a metal oxide (description discloses: “To evaluate the magneto-optical properties of these films, a 500nm YIG film was deposited on a transparent MgO substrate and crystallized by rapid thermal annealing under similar conditions”; Figure 1(c) discloses the room temperature Faraday rotation spectrum of a 500 nm polycrystalline YIG film growing on an MgO substrate);
A buffer layer disposed on the diffusion barrier layer (description discloses: “Figure 1(c) shows the room temperature Faraday rotation spectrum of a 500 nm polycrystalline YIG film growing on an MgO substrate”);
An optical isolation layer disposed on the buffer layer (description discloses: “We expect that, although not observed in X-ray diffraction patterns, a small fraction of amorphous or secondary phases I responsible for scattering in the polycrystalline YIG film, therefore increase the material lose at near infrared wavelengths. This loss mechanism has to be reduced or compensated by materials with stronger magneto-optical properties, such as Bi/Ce:YIG, to allow the fabrication of low insertion loss optical isolators in the future”).
Lei fails to disclose that the diffusion barrier layer is a polycrystalline diffusion barrier layer so that the polycrystalline diffusion barrier layer is between the substrate and the buffer layer; and wherein the polycrystalline diffusion barrier layer is configured to prevent mutual diffusion between the substrate and the buffer layer. However Leitz discloses a similar thin film where the diffusion barrier layer is a polycrystalline diffusion barrier layer so that the polycrystalline diffusion barrier layer is between the substrate and the buffer layer; and wherein the polycrystalline diffusion barrier layer is configured to prevent mutual diffusion between the substrate and the buffer layer (Leitz, Paragraph 0035 discloses a substrate, a polycrystalline diffusion barrier layer and a buffer layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the diffusion barrier layer as disclosed by Lei to be polycrystalline as disclosed by Leitz. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of preventing interdiffusion between the substrate and other elements (Leitz, Paragraph 0059).
Regarding Claim 6, Lei in view of Leitz the magneto-optic thin film of claim 1, wherein the buffer layer comprises yttrium iron garnet (YIG) (description discloses: “Figure 1(c) shows the room temperature Faraday rotation spectrum of a 500 nm polycrystalline YIG film growing on an MgO substrate”).
Regarding Claim 8, Lei in view of Leitz the magneto-optic thin film of claim 6, wherein the optical isolation layer comprises rare earth-doped YIG (description discloses: “We expect that, although not observed in X-ray diffraction patterns, a small fraction of amorphous or secondary phases I responsible for scattering in the polycrystalline YIG film, therefore increase the material lose at near infrared wavelengths. This loss mechanism has to be reduced or compensated by materials with stronger magneto-optical properties, such as Bi/Ce:YIG, to allow the fabrication of low insertion loss optical isolators in the future”).
Regarding Claim 10, Lei an optical isolator (description discloses: “it is suggested that a Bi:YIG or Ce:YIG layer may be integrated in these waveguide structures to achieve a higher NRPS and figure of merit for optical isolator applications) comprising:
a magneto-optic thin film (description discloses: “We report two novel strategies to integrate magneto-optical oxides on oxidized silicon and SOI platforms based on strip-loaded waveguide structures”), comprising:
A substrate (description discloses: “In this study, we report the integration of a polycrystalline YIG film on oxidized silicon and SOI substrates using As 2S 3/YIG and YIG/SOI strip-loaded structures);
A diffusion barrier layer disposed on the substrate and comprising a metal oxide (description discloses: “To evaluate the magneto-optical properties of these films, a 500nm YIG film was deposited on a transparent MgO substrate and crystallized by rapid thermal annealing under similar conditions”; Figure 1(c) discloses the room temperature Faraday rotation spectrum of a 500 nm polycrystalline YIG film growing on an MgO substrate);
A buffer layer disposed on the diffusion barrier layer (description discloses: “Figure 1(c) shows the room temperature Faraday rotation spectrum of a 500 nm polycrystalline YIG film growing on an MgO substrate”);
An optical isolation layer disposed on the buffer layer (description discloses: “We expect that, although not observed in X-ray diffraction patterns, a small fraction of amorphous or secondary phases I responsible for scattering in the polycrystalline YIG film, therefore increase the material lose at near infrared wavelengths. This loss mechanism has to be reduced or compensated by materials with stronger magneto-optical properties, such as Bi/Ce:YIG, to allow the fabrication of low insertion loss optical isolators in the future”).
Lei fails to disclose that the diffusion barrier layer is a polycrystalline diffusion barrier layer so that the polycrystalline diffusion barrier layer is between the substrate and the buffer layer; and wherein the polycrystalline diffusion barrier layer is configured to prevent mutual diffusion between the substrate and the buffer layer. However Leitz discloses a similar thin film where the diffusion barrier layer is a polycrystalline diffusion barrier layer so that the polycrystalline diffusion barrier layer is between the substrate and the buffer layer; and wherein the polycrystalline diffusion barrier layer is configured to prevent mutual diffusion between the substrate and the buffer layer (Leitz, Paragraph 0035 discloses a substrate, a polycrystalline diffusion barrier layer and a buffer layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the diffusion barrier layer as disclosed by Lei to be polycrystalline as disclosed by Leitz. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of preventing interdiffusion between the substrate and other elements (Leitz, Paragraph 0059).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Leitz in further view of Becker et al (US Publication No.: US 2023/0402554 A1, “Becker”).
Regarding Claim 2, Lei in view of Leitz discloses the magneto-optic thin film of claim 1.
Lei fails to disclose that the metal oxide comprises zinc oxide (ZnO).
However, Becker discloses a similar thin film where the metal oxide comprises zinc oxide (ZnO) (Becker, Paragraph 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the diffusion barrier film as disclosed by Lei to include ZnO as disclosed by Becker. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing the material for the diffusion barrier layer (Becker, Paragraph 0031).
Regarding Claim 11, Lei in view of Leitz the optical isolator of claim 10.
Lei fails to disclose that the metal oxide comprises zinc oxide (ZnO).
However, Becker discloses a similar thin film where the metal oxide comprises zinc oxide (ZnO) (Becker, Paragraph 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the diffusion barrier film as disclosed by Lei to include ZnO as disclosed by Becker. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing the material for the diffusion barrier layer (Becker, Paragraph 0031).
Claims 3-4, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Leitz and Becker in further view of Chen et al (US Publication No.: US 2022/0367631 A1 of record, “Chen”).
Regarding Claim 3, Lei in view of Leitz and Becker the magneto-optic film of claim 2.
Lei fails to disclose that a thickness of the polycrystalline diffusion barrier layer is less than 10 nanometers (nm).
However, Chen discloses a similar film where a thickness of the diffusion barrier layer is less than 10 nanometers (nm) (Chen, Paragraph 0081 discloses a range of 1 to 5 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Lei to have a particular thickness as disclosed by Chen. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing resistance and the barrier layer’s ability to mitigate/block diffusion (Chen, Paragraph 0039).
Regarding Claim 4, Lei in view of Chen, Becker, and Leitz discloses the magneto-optic thin film of claim 3.
Lei fails to disclose that the thickness is within a range of 3nm to 8nm.
However, Chen discloses a similar film where the thickness is within a range of 3nm to 8nm (Chen, Paragraph 0081 discloses a range of 1 to 5 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Lei to have a particular thickness as disclosed by Chen. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing resistance and the barrier layer’s ability to mitigate/block diffusion (Chen, Paragraph 0039).
Regarding Claim 12, Lei in view of Leitz and Becker the optical isolator of claim 11.
Lei fails to disclose that a thickness of the polycrystalline diffusion barrier layer is less than 10 nanometers (nm).
However, Chen discloses a similar film where a thickness of the diffusion barrier layer is less than 10 nanometers (nm) (Chen, Paragraph 0081 discloses a range of 1 to 5 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Lei to have a particular thickness as disclosed by Chen. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing resistance and the barrier layer’s ability to mitigate/block diffusion (Chen, Paragraph 0039).
Regarding Claim 13, Lei in view of Leitz, Chen, and Becker the optical isolator of claim 12.
Lei fails to disclose that the thickness is within a range of 3nm to 8nm.
However, Chen discloses a similar film where the thickness is within a range of 3nm to 8nm (Chen, Paragraph 0081 discloses a range of 1 to 5 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Lei to have a particular thickness as disclosed by Chen. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing resistance and the barrier layer’s ability to mitigate/block diffusion (Chen, Paragraph 0039).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Leitz in further view of Rawdanowicz et al (US Publication No.: US 2005/0124161 A1, “Rawdanowicz”).
Regarding Claim 5, Lei in view of Leitz the magneto-optic thin film of claim 1.
Lei fails to disclose that the substrate comprises silicon nitride (SiN).
However, Rawdanowicz discloses a similar thin film where the substrate comprises silicon nitride (SiN) (Rawdanowicz, Paragraph 0017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate as disclosed by Lei to be made of SiN as disclosed by Rawdanowicz. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of achieving high quality thin films (Rawdanowicz, Paragraph 0036).
Regarding Claim 14, Lei in view of Leitz the optical isolator of claim 10.
Lei fails to disclose that the substrate comprises silicon nitride (SiN).
However, Rawdanowicz discloses a similar thin film where the substrate comprises silicon nitride (SiN) (Rawdanowicz, Paragraph 0017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate as disclosed by Lei to be made of SiN as disclosed by Rawdanowicz. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of achieving high quality thin films (Rawdanowicz, Paragraph 0036).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Leitz in further view of Sweet et al (US Publication No.: US 2024/0003042 A1 of record, “Sweet”).
Regarding Claim 7, Lei in view of Leitz the magneto-optic thin film of claim 6.
Lei fails to disclose that a thickness of the buffer layer is within a range of 90 nanometers (nm) to 110 nm.
However, Sweet discloses a similar film where a thickness of the buffer layer is within a range of 90 nanometers (nm) to 110 nm (Sweet, Paragraph 0019 discloses a range of 50nm to 500nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Lei to have a particular thickness as disclosed by Sweet. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing the fabrication process (Sweet, Paragraph 0105).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 15, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a method, comprising: depositing a diffusion barrier layer on a substrate, wherein the diffusion barrier layer comprises a metal oxide; depositing a buffer layer on the diffusion barrier layer to obtain a film layer, wherein the buffer layer comprises yttrium iron garner (YIG); placing the film layer in a deposition cavity for in-situ annealing; injecting oxygen into the deposition cavity; increasing a temperature of the deposition cavity; holding the temperature for 3 to 5 minutes; waiting for natural cooling the deposition cavity; placing the film layer in an oxygen atmosphere in which partial pressure of oxygen is 0 mTorr to 100 mTorr and temperature is 650°C to 700°C, and depositing an optical isolation layer on the buffer layer to obtain a magneto-optic thin film, wherein the optical isolation comprises cerium-doped YIG (Ce:YIG).
The prior art of Lei (“Fabrication and characterization of As2S3/Y3Fe5O12 and Y3Fe5O12/SOI strip-loaded waveguides for integrated optical isolator applications”, as attached in IDS dated 12/27/2024, “Lei”) discloses a magneto-optic thin film comprising Ce:YIG (Lei, description). However, Lei fails to explicitly disclose the various film layer and the deposition method of achieve a magneto-optic thin film. The prior art of Srinivasan (US 2022/0214568 A1) discloses a general environment of using a deposition technique in an oxygenated environment while maintaining a high temperature to achieve an optical isolation layer (Srinivasan, Paragraph 0055; Paragraph 0008). However, Srinivasan also fails to disclose the particular layers that are deposited on one another and the particular method used to achieve the magneto-optic thin film comprising Ce:YIG.
Therefore, Claim 15 is allowed. Claims 16-20 are allowed by virtue of their dependence on the allowed claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Levy (US 5,408,565) discloses a magneto-optic thin film comprising polycrystalline layers
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 MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights