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 filed on 8/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument, “As shown in Fig. 8b, heaters 801 rest on the upper surface of substrate 802, beneath the polymer layer 805 - they are elements of the substrate interface, not elements embedded within, and terminating flush with or below the upper surface of, the layer identified as the dielectric layer” Examiner respectfully asserts that fig. 8b clearly shows that the electrodes are embedded in the dielectric. The claim does not recite that the electrodes are completely surrounded by the dielectric layer.
Regarding applicant’s argument, “elements 801 are resistive heaters, not electrodes that apply a modulating electric field”, examiner asserts that firstly the claim does not define the makeup of the electrodes and thus the metal resistive heaters 801 are electrodes. Furthermore, pg. 24, lines 11 – 13 teach that the heaters are electrodes. Secondly, the claim recites that the waveguide has an electro-optic effect, which is a characteristic of the material and not necessarily that the waveguide experiences an electro-optic effect in response to the electrodes themselves. However, pg. 10, lines 4 – 7, of Purchase teaches that the modulator of Purchase can be used in electro-optic operations.
Regarding applicant’s argument, “Lebby thus fails to disclose that "an organic waveguide and electrodes on two sides of the organic waveguide are disposed in the dielectric layer"…. "embedded in the dielectric layer such that a surface of a side of each of the electrodes that is away from the substrate is flush with, or lower than, a surface of a side of the dielectric layer that is away from the substrate", Examiner respectfully asserts that fig. 10 shows that the electrodes are embedded in the dielectric layer 70. The Examiner further asserts that layer 56 and 70 are both silica (pars. 0035 and 0038) and thus both can be interpreted as being the dielectric layer and having the waveguide and electrodes in the dielectric and the electrodes being embedded in the dielectric. Embedded does not necessarily mean fully surrounded by the dielectric layer. Accordingly, this action is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Purchase et al. (WO 01/67166 A1).
In Re claim 1, ‘166 teaches an electro-optic modulator (fig. 8b), comprising: a substrate (802); and a dielectric layer (805), disposed on a side of the substrate, wherein an organic waveguide (804, polymer as disclosed on pg. 9 of spec.) and electrodes (801) on two sides of the organic waveguide are disposed in the dielectric layer, a refractive index of the organic waveguide (pg. 22 of spec) is greater than a refractive index of the dielectric layer, and a material of the organic waveguide is an organic material having electro-optic effect (pg. 24 of the spec), wherein the electrodes are embedded in the dielectric layer such that a surface of a side of each of the electrodes that is away from the substrate is flush with, or lower than, a surface of a side of the dielectric layer that is away from the substrate (as seen in fig. 8b).
Claims 1 – 3, 5, 6, 8 – 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lebby et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2022/0187637 A1).
In Re claim 1, ‘637 teaches an electro-optic modulator (figs. 2B and 10), comprising: a substrate (54); and a dielectric layer (70 or 56 and 70, both silica, pars. 0035, 0038), disposed on a side of the substrate, wherein an organic waveguide (66, EO polymer, par. 0040) and electrodes (42) on two sides of the organic waveguide are disposed in the dielectric layer, a refractive index of the organic waveguide (1.8, par. 0038) is greater than a refractive index of the dielectric layer (1.45 – 1.7, par. 0038), and a material of the organic waveguide is an organic material having electro-optic effect (EO means electro-optic, par. 0038), wherein the electrodes are embedded in the dielectric layer such that a surface of a side of each of the electrodes that is away from the substrate is flush with, or lower than, a surface of a side of the dielectric layer that is away from the substrate (fig. 10).
In Re claim 2, ‘637 teaches wherein a dielectric waveguide (60) is disposed in the organic waveguide (fig. 10), the dielectric waveguide and the organic waveguide form a composite waveguide, and a refractive index of the dielectric waveguide (3.5 for Si, par. 0035) is greater than the refractive index of the organic waveguide (1.8, par. 0039).
In Re claim 3, ‘637 teaches wherein a material of the dielectric waveguide is one of the following: silicon nitride, hydrogenated amorphous silicon, or titanium dioxide (SiN, par. 0035).
In Re claim 5, ‘637 teaches wherein the dielectric layer further comprises: a transmission waveguide (22), wherein a refractive index of the transmission waveguide (Si, par. 0033) is greater than the refractive index of the dielectric layer (SiN or silica), and the transmission waveguide is connected to an input end and/or an output end of the composite waveguide (par. 0039).
In Re claim 6, ‘637 teaches wherein a material of the transmission waveguide is consistent with the material of the dielectric waveguide (fig. 2B, pars. 0033), the transmission waveguide is connected to the dielectric waveguide, and a width of the transmission waveguide is greater than a width of the dielectric waveguide (fig. 2B).
In Re claim 8, ‘637 teaches a coupling structure (taper 11 to thin active portion, par. 0033), wherein the coupling structure is connected to the transmission waveguide and the composite waveguide (fig. 2B).
In Re claim 9, ‘637 teaches wherein the coupling structure is located in the organic waveguide (pars. 0033, 0039), and is connected to the dielectric waveguide and the transmission waveguide, and widths of the coupling structure gradually increase from an end connected to the dielectric waveguide to an end connected to the transmission waveguide (fig. 2B).
In Re claim 10, ‘637 teaches wherein a material of the coupling structure is consistent with the material of the dielectric waveguide (fig. 2, par. 0033).
In Re claims 12 and 13, ‘637 teaches the claimed structures (figs. 2B, 10, par. 0033).
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.
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.
Claims 4, 7, 11, 14, 15 and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebby et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2022/0187637 A1).
In Re claims 4, 7, 11, 14 and 15, ‘637 teaches the claimed modulator but is silent to the claimed widths, heights, length and spacing.
However, its is well known in the art to design optical circuits such as modulators and connecting waveguides to guide commonly used optical wavelengths so as to allow for use of the optical circuits in a multitude of applications.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘637 to make the dimensions as claimed so as to allow for use of the modulator in commonly used telecom systems where the dimensions as claimed allow for compact yet efficient modulation and coupling of the light traversing the modulator, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claim 17, ‘637 teaches an optical communication system, comprising an electro-optic modulator (figs. 2B and 10), comprising: a substrate (54); and a dielectric layer (70 or 56 and 70 of which both are silica, pars. 0035, 0038), disposed on a side of the substrate, wherein an organic waveguide (66, EO polymer, par. 0040) and electrodes (42) on two sides of the organic waveguide are disposed in the dielectric layer, a refractive index of the organic waveguide (1.8, par. 0038) is greater than a refractive index of the dielectric layer (1.45 – 1.7, par. 0038), and a material of the organic waveguide is an organic material having electro-optic effect (EO means electro-optic, par. 0038), wherein the electrodes are embedded in the dielectric layer such that a surface of a side of each of the electrodes that is away from the substrate is flush with, or lower than, a surface of a side of the dielectric layer that is away from the substrate (fig. 10).
‘637 is expressly silent to a laser, a photodetector, wherein the electro-optic modulator is disposed between the laser and the photodetector, the laser is configured to transmit an optical signal, and the photodetector is configured to detect the optical signal obtained through the electro-optic modulation.
However, it is well known in the art to use a laser as a source to transmit an optical signal to a EO modulator that modulates the signal and a photodetector that receives the modulated optical signal so as to allow for detection of information such as radio frequency transmissions.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘637 to add a laser that transmits information and a photodetector as claimed so as to allow for detection of information such as radio frequency transmissions thus creating a useful, compact and reliable communications system as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claim 18, ‘637 teaches wherein a dielectric waveguide (60) is disposed in the organic waveguide (fig. 10), the dielectric waveguide and the organic waveguide form a composite waveguide, and a refractive index of the dielectric waveguide (3.5 for Si, par. 0035) is greater than the refractive index of the organic waveguide (1.8, par. 0039).
In Re claim 19, ‘637 teaches wherein a material of the dielectric waveguide is one of the following: silicon nitride, hydrogenated amorphous silicon, or titanium dioxide (SiN, par. 0035).
In Re claim 20, ‘637 teaches the claimed modulator but is silent to the claimed widths, heights, length and spacing.
However, its is well known in the art to design optical circuits such as modulators and connecting waveguides to guide commonly used optical wavelengths so as to allow for use of the optical circuits in a multitude of applications.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘637 to make the dimensions as claimed so as to allow for use of the modulator in commonly used telecom systems where the dimensions as claimed allow for compact yet efficient modulation and coupling of the light traversing the modulator, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
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 CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
