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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 6/24/26 are acknowledged. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended and claim 5 canceled. Claims 1 – 4 and 6 – 12 are pending.
Response to Amendments / Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claims versus the previously raised claim rejections under 35 USC 103 based on the Iwatsuka – Zhang combination have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as detailed below.
Amended claims 1 and 10:
Applicant has incorporated the limitations of canceled claim 5 into amended claims 1 and 10 and asserts that the Iwatsuka – Zhang combination neither teaches expressly nor renders obvious the recited limitations. In particular, Applicant points out alleged deficiencies of Iwatsuka and Zhang (pp. 9 – 10 of the Remarks).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the following:
(i) Applicant’s arguments are for mostly non-responsive to the actual rejections and/or refer to features that are not recited by the claims. Applicant refers to inconsequential features/portions of the applied references.
(ii) As was clearly explained in the Office Action of 3/26/26, the teachings of Zhang were applied to cover features (i) – (iii). There is no implied opposition, let alone express criticism of, one reference found in the other reference.
While Iwatsuka uses a two-step/double-ridge structure in the active modulation region, Zhang teaches that a two-step/double-ridge structure can be used as a passive input/output mode-size converter (feature (ii)). In that sense, the references apply respective two-step/double-ridge structures in a complimentary, not mutually exclusive, manner. The Iwatsuka – Zhang combination considers that a two-step/double-ridge structure can be used that a two-step/double-ridge structure can be used in the active modulation region and/or in a passive input/output mode-size converter.
As an aside and relevant comment, it is noted that Zhang et al (US 12,449,683 B1) was cited as pertinent art in the Office Action of 3/26/26 and shows (Fig. 2) a two-step/double-ridge structure 211/214 that is disposed in both an active modulation region 210A,210B and/or in a passive mode-size converter (arranged between 220 and 210A,210B). Zhang et al (US 12,449,683 B1) may be applied to the amended claims as an alternative ground of rejections.
(iii) As was clearly explained in the Office Action of 3/26/26 for claim 5, Fig. 3 of Iwatsuka shows a modulator comprising 5 electrodes, of which the electrodes 15a,15b are a pair of signal (S) electrodes that are disposed between 3 ground (G) electrodes 8a,8b,8c to collectively form a G-S-G-S-G electrode structure. As a relevant comment, it is noted that such type is very well known in the art. The Examiner cites below, as pertinent art, additional prior-art references, each reference disclosing an electro-optic modulator with a G-S-G-S-G electrode structure.
In light of the foregoing analysis, independent claims 1 and 10 are rejected as provided below, and so are the dependent claims for which Applicant does not provide any additional substantial arguments and which therefore stand or fall together with the respective independent claims.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1 – 4 and 6 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwatsuka et al (JP 2015-230466) in view of Zhang et al (US 12,321,051 B1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Iwatsuka discloses (Figs. 1 – 3; para. 0023 – 0044) a phase modulation module (in each arm 10a,10b of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer in Fig. 3; para. 0043), wherein the phase modulation module (electro-optic phase modulator) comprises an input end face (the left vertical end face in Fig. 3) and an output end face (the right vertical end face in Fig. 3), and the phase modulation module comprises a substrate 1, a waveguide layer 2,3 (Fig. 2), and an electrode layer 7,8 (Fig. 3), wherein the substrate 1, the waveguide layer 2,3, and the electrode layer 7,8 are arranged in sequence (as seen in Fig. 4),
wherein the electrode layer 7,8 comprises a plurality of electrodes 7a,7b,8a,8b,8c (of a G-S-G-S-G type) that are arranged at intervals (as seen in Fig. 3) and wherein the plurality of electrodes 7a,7b,8a,8b,8c are configured to form a modulating electric field region (of length L; para. 0043); and
the waveguide layer 2,3 comprises a plate layer 2C, a first ridge layer 2B, and a second ridge layer 2A, wherein the plate layer 2C, the first ridge layer 2B, and the second ridge layer 2A are arranged in sequence in a direction away from the substrate 1 (as seen in Fig. 2),
wherein the plate layer 2C extends to the input end face and the output end face (across the entire substrate 1; Figs. 1 – 4; para. 0025);
the first ridge layer 2B protrudes in a ridge shape from a (top) surface of the plate layer 2C and extends to the input end face and the output end face (Figs. 1 – 4; para. 0042 – 0044), and the first ridge layer 2B is partially located in the modulating electric field region L (as part of the two-ridge portion 3; Figs. 3 and 4; “The ridge portion 3 has a two step ridge structure comprising a combination of a first portion W1 of the waveguide layer 2 having a ridge-width T1 and a thickness 2A, and a second portion 2A of the waveguide layer 2 having a ridge-width W2 and a thickness T2 and disposed on both sides of the first portion” at para. 0024);
the second ridge layer 2A protrudes in a ridge shape from a (top) surface of the first ridge layer 2B, and the second ridge layer 2A is partially located in the modulating electric field region L ((as part of the two-ridge portion 3; Figs. 3 and 4; ibid); and
the second ridge layer 2A and the first ridge layer 2B form at least one waveguide arm 10a,10b (as identified in Fig’s 3 and 4),
wherein the plurality of electrodes 7,8 (shown in Fig. 3 of Iwatsuka and being G-S-G-S-G) comprise a first signal electrode 7a, a ground electrode 8b, and a second signal electrode 7b, wherein the first signal electrode 7a, the ground electrode 8b, and the second signal electrode 7b are arranged in sequence (as seen in Fig. 3); and
the second ridge layer 2A and the first ridge layer 2B form two waveguide arms 10a,10b (Figs. 3 and 4), wherein one waveguide arm 10a of the two waveguide arms 10a,10b is modulated by a modulating electric field region formed by the first signal electrode 7a and the ground electrode 8b, and the other waveguide arm 10b of the two waveguide arms 10a,10b is modulated by a modulating electric field region formed by the second signal electrode 7b and the ground electrode 8b (para. 0043).
Iwatsuka does not detail that (i) the disclosed modulation module can further comprise an isolation layer between the substrate 1 and the waveguide layer 2,3; that (ii) the first ridge layer 2B and the second ridge layer 2A can be configured to collectively form a mode/spot-size converter; and that (iii) the disclosed two-ridge waveguide structure can be used for form a phase modulator (rather than an amplitude modulator in Fig 3 which comprises a pair of phase modulators). However, Zhang provides such (well-known) features (i), (ii), and (iii), as detailed below.
As for feature (i), Zhang discloses (Figs. 1, 2, and 5 – 7; Abstract; 4:33 – 12:55) a phase modulation module (e.g., a phase modulator in Fig. 7A; 12:43 – 46) comprising a substrate 701 (104 in Fig. 1A), a waveguide layer 712,714 that includes a plate/slab player 715 and a right layer 712; and further comprising an isolation layer 702 (102 in Fig. 1A) disposed between substrate 701 and the waveguide layer 712,714.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the modulation module of Iwatsuka can further comprise, in accordance with the teachings of Zhang, an isolation layer (e.g., formed of silicon dioxide) disposed between substrate 1 and the waveguide layer 2,3, so that a wide variety of substrate materials can be used and low optical low and microwave velocity matching can be achieved by using such isolation layer (16:24 – 45 of Zhang).
As for feature (ii), Zhang teaches (Figs. 1A, 2A, 5 and 6) that the ridge waveguide is shaped/configured as mode/spot-size converter by stopping the top ridge 114/712 short of an end face and thereby a spacing between the right end and the end face. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the second (topmost) ridge layer 2A of Iwatsuka can be configured, in accordance with the teachings of Zhang, to have a spacing from each of the input end face and the output end face and thereby function as a part of a mode/spot-size converter (collectively with the first ridge layer 2B which corresponds to 112 in Fig. 1A of Zhang).
As for feature (iii), the Iwatsuka – Zhang combination considers the use of two-ridge waveguide structures with mode/spot-size converters at waveguide ends for both intensity modulators (as in Fig. 3 of Iwatsuka) and phase modulators (as in Fig. 7A of Zhang). In a phase modulator, a single waveguide arm extends to the input end face and the output end face and modulated by the modulating electric field region (as in Fig. 7A of Zhang).
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Iwatsuka – Zhang combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
As an aside and relevant comment, it is also noted that the modulation module of the Iwatsuka – Zhang combination has essential structural features (a plate layer, a tapered first ridge layer, and a tapered second (topmost) right layer) and a principle of operation (mode/spot-size conversion in a thin-film waveguide modulator) that are substantially similar/identical to those of the claimed modulation module, as evident from a direct side-by-side comparison of the two-ridge waveguide (in Fig. 2 of Iwatsuka) configured/shaped as a mode/spot-size converter (according to Figs. 1, 2, 5, and 6 of Zhang) with Fig. 2 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 2, the Iwatsuka – Zhang combination considers that the second (topmost) ridge layer 2A (in Fig. 2 of Iwatsuka) is tapered down at both ends (according to Figs. 1A, 2A, 5, and 6 of Zhang) and comprises a first (left) variable-width (tapered) portion, a first constant-width portion (along the modulating electric field region), and a second (right) variable-width (tapered) portion, wherein the first variable-width portion, the first constant-width portion, and the second variable-width portion are connected in sequence in a length direction (according to Figs. 1A, 2A, 5, and 6 of Zhang), the first constant-width portion has a constant width, and a portion of the first constant-width portion is located in the modulating electric field region (as shown in Figs. 1B and 1F of Zhang), wherein a width direction is orthogonal to the length direction; and a width of the first variable-width portion and a width of the second variable-width portion each decrease in gradient or gradually in a direction away from the first constant-width portion.
Regarding claim 3, the Iwatsuka – Zhang combination considers that the first ridge layer 2B (in Fig. 2 of Iwatsuka) is tapered/shaped (according to the layer 112/212,512 in Figs. 1A, 2A, 5, and 6 of Zhang) and comprises a second (left) constant-width portion, a third (left) variable-width portion, a plate (central) portion, a fourth (right) variable-width portion, and a third (right) constant-width portion, wherein the second constant-width portion, the third variable-width portion, the plate portion, the fourth variable-width portion, and the third constant-width portion are connected in sequence in a length direction, the second constant-width portion has a constant width, and the third constant-width portion has a constant width; a portion of the plate portion is located in the modulating electric field region; and a width of the third variable-width portion and a width of the fourth variable-width portion each decrease in gradient or gradually in a direction away from the plate portion.
Regarding claim 4, the Iwatsuka – Zhang combination considers that the plurality of electrodes 7,8 (in Fig. 3 of Iwatsuka) comprise a ground electrode 8a,8b,8c and a signal electrode 7a,7b, and the second ridge layer 2A and the first ridge layer 2B form a single waveguide arm 3 (10A or 10B) modulated by a modulating electric field region formed by the ground electrode 8a,8b,8c and the signal electrode 7a,7b (para. 0043).
Regarding claim 6, the Iwatsuka – Zhang combination considers that the plurality of electrodes 7,8 (in Fig. 3 of Iwatsuka) formed a push-pull electrode configuration and comprise a first ground electrode 8a, a first signal electrode 7a, a second ground electrode 8b, a second signal electrode 7b, and a third ground electrode 8c, wherein the first ground electrode, the first signal electrode, the second ground electrode, the second signal electrode, and the third ground electrode are arranged in sequence (as seen in Fig. 3); and the second ridge layer 2A and the first ridge layer 2B form two waveguide arms 10a,10b, wherein one waveguide arm 10a of the two waveguide arms 10a,10b is modulated by a modulating electric field region formed by the first ground electrode 8a and the first signal electrode 7a, and the other waveguide arm 10b of the two waveguide arms 10a,10b is modulated by a modulating electric field region formed by the second ground electrode 8b and the second signal electrode 7b.
Regarding claim 7, the Iwatsuka – Zhang combination renders obvious (e.g., Fig. 4 of Iwatsuka; Figs. 1B and 1F, and 7B of Zhang) that at least a portion of the electrode layer is formed on a surface of the first ridge layer 2B away from the substrate (by a gap d in Fig. 7B of Zhang) and does not overlap the second ridge layer 2A (as in X-cut lithium niobate; para. 0033 and 0334 of Iwatsuka; 11:54 – 62 of Zhang), or at least a portion of the electrode layer is formed on a surface of the plate layer away from the substrate and does not overlap the first ridge layer and the second ridge layer, or at least a portion of the electrode layer is formed on a surface of the isolation layer away from the substrate and does not overlap the waveguide layer, or the phase modulation module further comprises an insulating support layer located between the waveguide layer and the electrode layer, and at least a portion of the electrode layer is formed on a surface of the insulating support layer away from the substrate and does not overlap the second ridge layer.
Regarding claim 8, the Iwatsuka – Zhang combination considers (Fig. 3 of Iwatsuka) that each waveguide arm 10a,10b comprises at least one bent portion (forming a portion of the input and output Y-branch).
Regarding claim 9, the Iwatsuka – Zhang combination considers (Fig. 3 of Iwatsuka; Fig. 7A of Zhang) that the input end face and the output end face are respectively located on two opposite sides of the phase modulation module.
Regarding claim 11, the Iwatsuka – Zhang combination considers the use of two-ridge waveguide structures with mode/spot-size converters at waveguide ends of a phase modulator (as in Fig. 7A of Zhang), wherein a single waveguide arm extends to the input end face and the output end face and is terminated by a respective spot-size conversion element, as taught by Zhang (e.g., Figs. 1A, 2A, 5, and 6 of Zhang). Such structure comprises a first spot size conversion element and a second spot size conversion element, wherein the first spot size conversion element has a ridge waveguide structure and comprises a divergent input end and a convergent output end, and the second spot size conversion element has a ridge waveguide structure and comprises a convergent input end and a divergent output end; and one of the at least one waveguide arm has one end coupled to the convergent output end of the first spot size conversion element, and the other end coupled to the convergent input end of the second spot size conversion element.
As an aside, its noted that Figs. 1A and 2A of Zhang illustrated spot-size converters that that a shape similar/identical to that of the spot-size converters 70,80 in Fig. 7 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 12, the Iwatsuka – Zhang combination considers (Fig. 3 of Iwatsuka) that the second ridge layer 2A and the first ridge layer 2B form at least two waveguide arms 10a,10b (of a Mach-Zehnder modulator); the electro-optic modulator further comprises a light splitting element (input 1x2 Y-branch) and a light combining element (output 2x1 Y-branch), wherein the light splitting element has a ridge waveguide structure and comprises a (left) signal input end, a first split light output end, and a second split light output end, and the light combining element has a ridge waveguide structure and comprises a first split light input end, a second split light input end, and a signal output end; and two of the at least two waveguide arms are respectively coupled at one end to the first split light output end and the second split light output end, and respectively coupled at the other end to the first split light input end and the second split light input end.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0377696 A1 Fig. 6 shows waveguides with 2-step ridges.
US 2022/0158412 A1 Fig. 10A shows a waveguide structure with a 2-step ridge.
US 2023/0055077 A1 Fig. 7 shows a modulator with G-S-G-S-G electrodes.
US 2016/0033848 A1 Figs. 2 and 3 show a modulator with G-S-G-S-G electrodes.
US 2020/0041824 A1 Fig. 16D shows a modulator with G-S-G-S-G electrodes.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 6/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and have failed to place the instant application in condition for allowance. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, 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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/ROBERT TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights