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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US 2021/0273122 (“YONEDA”) in view of US 2024/0353729 (“SHARMA”).
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.
Regarding claim 1, YONEDA teaches a device (FIG. 5) comprising: a first element (6d) comprising a photodetector layer (19) having a first interface (C1) and a second interface (C2), each of the first and second interfaces configured to receive incident light (par. [0062]); a second element (8f), at least partly butt-coupled to at least one of the first and second interfaces of the first element (FIG. 5; par. [0062]), the second element comprising an intermediate waveguide structure (80) supporting an intermediate optical mode (par. [0078]); wherein a first portion of an optical signal guided along the intermediate waveguide structure and incident on the first interface of the photodetector layer is transmitted into the photodetector layer (FIG. 5;
par. [0062]); and wherein first and second elements are fabricated on a common substrate (9) as a photonic integrated circuit (par. [0048]).
YONEDA does not teach that a second portion of the optical signal is reflected away from the first interface to be subsequently incident on the second interface of the photodetector layer. SHARMA teaches a second portion of an optical signal that is reflected away from a first interface to be subsequently incident on a second interface of ae photodetector layer (Abstract; pars. [0019]-[0024]; pars. [0045]-[0060]; FIG. 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device of YONEDA such that a second portion of the optical signal is reflected away from the first interface to be subsequently incident on the second interface of the photodetector layer, as taught by SHARMA. The motivation would have been to improve link performance (pars. [0045]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 2, YONEDA teaches that the intermediate waveguide structure is at least partially butt-coupled to each of the first and second interfaces of the first element (FIG. 5; par. [0062]).
Regarding claim 3, YONEDA teaches that the intermediate waveguide structure comprises a slab structure providing vertical confinement of the intermediate optical mode
(pars. [0063], [0092]).
Regarding claim 11, YONEDA in view of SHARMA renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 1. The additional limitation appears to involve mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to duplicate the parts of YONEDA in view of SHARMA as set forth in the instant claim.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YONEDA in view of SHARMA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 9,557,484 (“NORBERG”).
YONEDA in view of SHARMA renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 1. YONEDA does not teach a third element comprising a passive waveguide structure supporting a first optical mode; wherein a tapered waveguide structure in at least one of the second and third elements facilitates efficient adiabatic transformation between the first and intermediate optical modes. NORBERG teaches a third element comprising a passive waveguide structure (100) supporting a first optical mode; wherein a tapered waveguide structure (102) in at least one of second and third elements facilitates efficient adiabatic transformation between the first and an intermediate optical mode (col. 2, lines 26-42; col. 3, line 65 – col. 4, line 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device of YONEDA with the third element of NORBERG. The motivation would have been to improve optical coupling (col. 2, lines 26-42; col. 3, line 65 – col. 4, line 6).
Regarding claim 5, YONEDA teaches that the first interface of the first element is angled with respect to an optical axis characterizing the passive waveguide structure to reduce back-reflection into the passive waveguide structure (FIG. 5; par. [0062])).
Regarding claim 6, YONEDA teaches that the passive waveguide structure comprises at least one of silicon-nitride, silicon-oxynitride, titanium-dioxide, tantalum-pentoxide, (doped) silicon-dioxide, lithium-niobate, lithium-tantalate, rubidium-titanyl-phosphate (RTP), and aluminum-nitride (par. [0054]).
Regarding claim 7, YONEDA teaches that the photodetector layer comprises a material characterized by a refractive index > 3, the material comprising at least one of indium-phosphide and indium-phosphide ternary and quaternary materials, gallium-arsenide and gallium-arsenide based ternary and quaternary materials (pars. [0037], [0050]-[0052], [0063], [0077],
[0081]-[0083], [0091]).
Regarding claim 6, YONEDA teaches that the photodetector layer comprises a material characterized by a refractive index >3, the material comprising at least one of silicon and germanium (par. [0054]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YONEDA in view of SHARMA and further in view of NORBERG.
Regarding claim 12, YONEDA teaches a device (FIG. 5) comprising: a first element (6d) comprising a photodetector layer (19) having an interface (C1) configured to receive incident light; a third element (8f), at least partly butt-coupled to the interface of the photodetector layer (FIG. 5; par. [0062]), the third element comprising an intermediate waveguide structure (80) supporting an intermediate optical mode (par. [0078]); wherein a first portion of an optical signal guided along the passive waveguide structure and the intermediate waveguide structure to be incident on the interface is transmitted into the photodetector layer (FIG. 5; par. [0062]); and wherein the first, second, and third elements are fabricated on a common substrate (9) as a photonic integrated circuit (par. [0048]).
YONEDA does not teach that a second portion of the optical signal is reflected away from the interface to be subsequently incident on the reflective interface of the fourth element; and a fourth element comprising a reflector having at least one reflective interface; wherein the reflector is designed and positioned to reflect at least part of the second portion of the optical signal incident on the reflective interface back to the first element photodetector layer. SHARMA teaches a second portion of an optical signal that is reflected away from an interface to be subsequently incident on a reflective interface of a fourth element; wherein a reflector is designed and positioned to reflect at least part of the second portion of the optical signal incident on the reflective interface back to the first element photodetector layer (Abstract; pars. [0019]-[0024]; pars. [0045]-[0060]; FIG. 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device of YONEDA such that a second portion of the optical signal is reflected away from the first interface to be subsequently incident on the second interface of the photodetector layer, as taught by SHARMA. The motivation would have been to improve link performance (pars. [0045]-[0060]).
YONEDA also does not teach a second element comprising a passive waveguide structure supporting a first optical mode; wherein a tapered waveguide structure in at least one of the second and third elements facilitates efficient adiabatic transformation between the first and intermediate optical modes. NORBERG teaches a second element comprising a passive waveguide structure (100) supporting a first optical mode; wherein a tapered waveguide structure (102) in at least one of the second and third elements facilitates efficient adiabatic transformation between the first and intermediate optical modes (col. 2, lines 26-42; col. 3, line 65 – col. 4, line 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device of YONEDA with the second element of NORBERG. The motivation would have been to improve optical coupling (col. 2, lines 26-42; col. 3, line 65 – col. 4, line 6).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YONEDA in view of SHARMA and further in view of NORBERG as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 2011/0007998 (YAMAMOTO”).
YONEDA in view of SHARMA and further in view of NORBERG renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 12. YONEDA does not teach that the reflector comprises at least one of aluminum, gold, silver, copper, and tungsten. YAMAMOTO teaches a reflector comprising at least one of aluminum, gold, silver, copper, and tungsten (par. [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device of YONEDA such that the reflector comprises at least one of aluminum, gold, silver, copper, and tungsten, as taught by YAMAMOTO. The motivation would have been to improve reflectance of the reflector (par. [0032]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: 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 photodetector layer comprises an active waveguide structure supporting a second optical mode; wherein the third element comprises a splitter structure configured to split the optical signal guided along the passive waveguide structure into two substantially equal first and second parts, each part subsequently being incident on a corresponding one of the first and second interfaces of the photodetector layer; wherein a fourth element coupled to the third element provides phase shifting capability to at least one of the parts of the optical signal; and wherein each of the photodetector layer and the phase shifter is controlled to minimize back-reflection from the first and second interfaces of the photodetector layer.
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