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 .
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.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
US 2021/0018690 (“BIAN”).
BIAN teaches a method for fabricating a grating structure (10), comprising:
depositing, on top of a first dielectric material (20), a second dielectric material (34; par. [0025]), the first dielectric material being different than the second dielectric material (pars. [0022], [0025]);
patterning a first photoresist layer on the second dielectric material to define a waveguide (28);
performing a first etch of the second dielectric material to form the waveguide (par. [0022]);
patterning a second photoresist layer on the second dielectric material to define a grating (22);
performing a second etch of the second dielectric material (par. [0022]) to form the grating including a plurality with of grating structures (24);
performing a third etch of the second dielectric material to etch a portion of each of the plurality of grating structures (par. [0022]; FIG. 5); and
depositing a conformal layer (32) of a third dielectric material between and on top of the plurality of grating structures (FIG. 5).
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BIAN.
BIAN teaches the limitations of the base claim 13. BIAN further teaches that the first and second dielectric layers comprise silicon nitride while the third dielectric layer comprises silicon oxide (pars. [0022], [0025]).
The claimed distinction is that the first and second dielectric layers comprise silicon oxide while the third dielectric layer comprises silicon nitride. In both the claimed invention and in BIAN, the first and second dielectric layers are of a same first material while the third dielectric layer is of a second different material, the difference being in switching what constitutes the first and second materials. However, it appears that the important feature is that the first and second dielectric layers are of a same first dielectric material while the third dielectric layer is of a second different dielectric material. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to switch the first and second materials of BIAN, thus obtaining the claimed invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BIAN in view of US 2015/0293303 (“PAN”).
BIAN teaches the limitations of the base claim 13. BIAN does not teach that a duration of the second etch is longer than a duration of the third etch, the third etch being a timed etch to remove only a portion of exposed dielectric material. PAN teaches a timed etch to remove only a portion of exposed material (PAN, claim 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the third etch of BIAN to be a timed etch, such that the duration of the second etch is longer than that of the third etch. The motivation would have been to remove only a portion of the exposed dielectric material, thus singulating the individual gratings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 17, and 21 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.
Claims 22-35 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious installing an optical fiber forming an angle equal to or more than 5 degrees and equal to or less than 15 degrees with a normal of the conformal layer of the third dielectric material and at a distance equal to or more than 10 microns and equal to or less than 100 microns from the top of the conformal layer of the third dielectric material.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious that depositing the second dielectric material comprises depositing at least 300 nm of silicon nitride; and the third etch is an anisotropic etch timed to form the plurality of grating structures with a top portion and a bottom portion, the top portion being narrower than the bottom portion, and a grating angle equal to or more than 60 degrees and equal to or less than 90 degrees with respect to the first dielectric material.
Regarding claims 21-30, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious that the top portions of grating structures close to the first waveguide portion are narrower than the top portions of grating structures close to the second waveguide portion; and that the bottom portions of the ones of the plurality of grating structures close to the first waveguide portion are narrower than the bottom portions of the ones of the plurality of grating structures close to the second waveguide portion.
Regarding claims 31-35, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious that each of the plurality of grating structures is separated from an adjacent one of the grating structures by a width; and the widths corresponding to structures from the plurality of grating structures close to the first waveguide portion are larger than the widths corresponding to structures from the plurality of grating structures close to the second waveguide portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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 at 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 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.
/JERRY M BLEVINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights