SEMICONDUCTOR PHOTONICS DEVICE AND METHODS OF FORMATION

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 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 This is an AIA application filed May 13, 2024. The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as January 5, 2024, the date of the earliest priority application (United States provisional patent application serial number 63/617,926) for any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by the provisional application. The effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as May 13, 2024, the actual filing date, for any claims that are not fully supported by the foregoing provisional or non-provisional application(s). The present application is also related to the applications giving rise to the following patent publication(s) (some redundancy may be present): Office Application App. Date Pub. # Pub. Date CN 202520006111 01/02/2025 CN 223756941 U 01/02/2026 The claims filed August 14, 2026 are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination. This action is in response to the filing of the same date. The current status and history of the claims are summarized below: Last Amendment/Response Previously Amended: 1-3, 9, 10, 13, & 14 N/A Cancelled: none N/A Withdrawn: none N/A Added: none N/A Claims 1-20 are currently pending and outstanding. Regarding the last reply: Claims 1-3, 9, 10, 13, and 14 were amended. No claims were cancelled. No claims were withdrawn. No claims were added. Claims 1-20 are currently outstanding and subject to examination. This is a final action and is the second action on the merits. Allowable subject matter is not indicated below. Often, in the substance of the action below, formal matters are addressed first, claim rejections second, and any response to arguments third. Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(IV) No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given their plain meaning. MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01. If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring those to the attention of the examiner and the prosecution history with its next response in a manner both specific and particular. In doing so, there will be no mistake, confusion, and/or ambiguity as to what constitutes the special definition(s). To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions. 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. 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 1-7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20040202430 of Scheuer et al. (Scheuer) in view of European patent publication number 4443675 of Zhang et al. published October 9, 2024 (Zhang, cited by Applicant and corresponding to WO 2023173738 A1 published September 21, 2023). With respect to claim 1, Scheuer discloses a semiconductor photonics device Figs. 1C, 3A-4B, comprising: a first optical waveguide structure (Fig. 1C, top input port/trough port); and a second optical waveguide structure (bottom drop port); and a third optical waveguide structure, between the first optical waveguide structure and the second optical waveguide structure (ring resonator), comprising a closed-loop optical waveguide structure (per Fig. 1C). Scheuer as set forth above does not disclose: a third optical waveguide structure, comprising a closed-loop optical waveguide structure with a top view shape having a plurality of linear segments that are connected at interconnection points, wherein an optical signal loss for the closed-loop optical waveguide structure is based on a segment-induced loss at the interconnection points. Zhang Fig. 3 shows: a third optical waveguide structure, comprising a closed-loop optical waveguide structure with a top view shape having a plurality of linear segments that are connected at interconnection points, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polygonal shape for a resonant waveguide structure along the lines of Zhang in a system according to Scheuer as set forth above in order to provide a known structure for optical resonance. This provides one rationale to combine the references. Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical resonance device) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024). Additionally, regarding the clause: wherein an optical signal loss for the closed-loop optical waveguide structure is based on a segment-induced loss at the interconnection points. This is addressed by the fact that the same structures provide the same features per the MPEP. For product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties and/or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP § 2112.01(I). Consequently, because Scheuer in view of Zhang as set forth above provides the structure of claim 1, the combination is seen as also providing the same claimed properties or functions of claim 1. Unsupported features are seen to directly result from the supported/claimed structures. No authority is known by which unsupported or “naked” functions/characteristics/features can be claimed and subject to exclusive protection. Below, this analysis is referred to as “same product/same features”. Further, the combination would then provide: a third optical waveguide structure, between the first optical waveguide structure and the second optical waveguide structure, comprising a closed-loop optical waveguide structure with a top view shape having a plurality of linear segments that are connected at interconnection points, wherein an optical signal loss for the closed-loop optical waveguide structure is based on a segment-induced loss at the interconnection points. With respect to claim 2, Scheuer in view of Zhang as set forth above discloses the semiconductor photonics device of claim 1, including one wherein a first linear segment, of the plurality of linear segments, at a first side of the third optical waveguide structure is adjacent to the first optical waveguide structure; wherein a second linear segment, of the plurality of linear segments, at a second side of the third optical waveguide structure is adjacent to the second optical waveguide structure; and wherein the first side and the second side are opposing sides of the third optical waveguide structure. Per the combination of claim 1 with the ring resonator of Zhang Fig. 3 as the ring resonator of Scheuer Fig. 1C. With respect to claim 3, Scheuer in view of Zhang as set forth above discloses the semiconductor photonics device of claim 1, including one wherein the third optical waveguide structure is a first closed-loop optical waveguide structure in the semiconductor photonics device, comprising a first top view shape having a first plurality of linear segments; and wherein the semiconductor photonics device further comprises: a second closed-loop optical waveguide structure, adjacent to the first closed-loop optical waveguide structure, comprising a second top view shape having a second plurality of linear segments. Scheuer Figs. 3B and 3C with the ring resonator of Zhang Fig. 3. With respect to claim 4, Scheuer in view of Zhang as set forth above discloses the semiconductor photonics device of claim 3, including one wherein the first top view shape and the second top view shape are different top view shapes. Scheuer Figs. 3B and 3C with the ring resonator of Zhang Fig. 3 and the ring resonator of Zhang Figs. 1 or 2 or any other polygon save that shown in Fig. 3. With respect to claim 5, Scheuer in view of Zhang as set forth above discloses the semiconductor photonics device of claim 3, including one wherein the first closed-loop optical waveguide structure is adjacent to the first optical waveguide structure; wherein the second closed-loop optical waveguide structure is adjacent to the second optical waveguide structure; and wherein the second closed-loop optical waveguide structure is between the first closed-loop optical waveguide structure and the second optical waveguide structure. Scheuer Figs. 3B and 3C with the ring resonator of Zhang Fig. 3. With respect to claim 6, Scheuer in view of Zhang as set forth above discloses the semiconductor photonics device of claim 3, including one wherein the first closed-loop optical waveguide structure is adjacent to the first optical waveguide structure at a first side of the first closed-loop optical waveguide structure and is adjacent to the second optical waveguide structure at a second side of the first closed-loop optical waveguide structure opposing the first side of the first closed-loop optical waveguide structure; and wherein the second closed-loop optical waveguide structure is adjacent to the first optical waveguide structure at a first side of the second closed-loop optical waveguide structure and is adjacent to the second optical waveguide structure at a second side of the second closed-loop optical waveguide structure opposing the first side of the second closed-loop optical waveguide structure. Scheuer Figs. 4A and 4B show a serial, and not a parallel structure susceptible to the analysis above (as do all the preceding and others herein). With respect to claim 7, Scheuer in view of Zhang as set forth above discloses the semiconductor photonics device of claim 1, including one wherein the third optical waveguide structure is a first closed-loop optical waveguide structure in the semiconductor photonics device; and wherein the semiconductor photonics device further comprises: a second closed-loop optical waveguide structure, adjacent to the first closed-loop optical waveguide structure, comprising a ring-shaped top view shape. Per the figures of Scheuer showing ring shapes: Figs. 1C and 3A-4B. With respect to claim 10, Scheuer in view of Zhang as set forth above discloses a semiconductor photonics device (Scheuer Figs. 3B and 3C with the ring resonator of Zhang Fig. 3), including one comprising: a first optical waveguide structure comprising a first top view shape having a plurality of first linear segments (Scheuer Fig. 3B top ring); and a second optical waveguide structure comprising a second top view shape having a plurality of second linear segments (Scheuer Fig. 3B bottom ring); and a third optical waveguide structure, between the first optical waveguide structure and the second optical waveguide structure (Scheuer Fig. 3B any of the middle rings), comprising a closed-loop optical waveguide structure with a third top view shape having a plurality of third linear segments that are connected at interconnection points (per Zhang Fig. 3), wherein an optical signal loss for the closed-loop optical waveguide structure is based on a segment-induced loss at the interconnection points (same product/same features). With respect to claim 11, Scheuer in view of Zhang as set forth above discloses the semiconductor photonics device of claim 10, wherein the first top view shape and the second top view shape are each approximately symmetrical with at least a portion of the third top view shape. Scheuer Figs. 3B and 3C with the ring resonator of Zhang Fig. 3 per claim 10, above. With respect to claim 12, Scheuer in view of Zhang as set forth above discloses the semiconductor photonics device of claim 10, including one wherein the first top view shape and the second top view shape are approximately mirrored top view shapes. Scheuer Figs. 3B and 3C with the ring resonator of Zhang Fig. 3 per claim 10, above. With respect to claim 13, Scheuer in view of Zhang as set forth above discloses the semiconductor photonics device of claim 10, including one wherein the third optical waveguide structure is a first closed-loop optical waveguide structure, the semiconductor photonics device further comprising: a second closed-loop optical waveguide structure between the first closed-loop optical waveguide structure and the second optical waveguide structure, wherein the second closed-loop optical waveguide structure comprises a fourth top view shape having a plurality of fourth linear segments. Scheuer Figs. 3B and 3C with the ring resonator of Zhang Fig. 3 per claim 10, above. Claims 8, 9, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Scheuer in view of Zhang as set forth above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20080008418 of Smith et al. (Smith). With respect to claim 8, Scheuer in view of Zhang as set forth above discloses the semiconductor photonics device of claim 1, but not one wherein the first optical waveguide structure and the second optical waveguide structure have different material compositions. Smith discloses a coupling light into microresonators that includes waveguides of different materials, including semiconductor and dielectric. ¶ 55: "This monolithic approach is typically realized in glass, polymer, or semiconductor waveguides, and provides excellent stability of coupling between the waveguides and the resonator." ¶ 56: "Next bus waveguide dielectric core layer 520 is deposited and patterned." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have waveguides of different materials along the lines of Smith in a system according to Scheuer in view of Zhang as set forth above in order to provide options for optical characteristics as well as using available technologies for optical manufacture. This provides one rationale to combine the references. Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical resonance device) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024). Further, the combination would then provide: the first optical waveguide structure and the second optical waveguide structure have different material compositions. With respect to claim 9, Scheuer in view of Zhang and Smith as set forth above discloses the semiconductor photonics device of claim 8, including one wherein the first optical waveguide structure comprises a semiconductor material; and wherein the second optical waveguide structure comprises a dielectric material. Per claim 8, above. With respect to claim 14, Scheuer in view of Zhang as set forth above discloses a method, comprising: forming, a semiconductor photonics device, with a first optical waveguide structure comprising a first top view shape; forming, a second optical waveguide structure comprising a second top view shape; and forming, a third optical waveguide structure, wherein the third optical waveguide structure is between the first optical waveguide structure and the second optical waveguide structure, wherein the third optical waveguide structure comprises a closed-loop optical waveguide structure with a third top view shape having a plurality of linear segments that are connected at interconnection points, and wherein an optical signal loss for the closed-loop optical waveguide structure is based on a segment-induced loss at the interconnection points. See claim 1, above. Scheuer in view of Zhang as set forth above does not disclose: forming the foregoing structures above a semiconductor substrate. Smith discloses ¶ 53: "The channel waveguide structure 308 of FIGS. 3-4 is made monolithically on a planar substrate using semiconductor fabrication techniques." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide and use a semiconductor substrate along the lines of Smith in a system according to Scheuer in view of Zhang as set forth above in order to fabricate an optical device according to current/known lithographic techniques. This provides one rationale to combine the references. Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical resonance device) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024). Further, the combination would then provide: forming the foregoing structures above a semiconductor substrate, including: above a semiconductor substrate of a semiconductor photonics device, with a first optical waveguide structure comprising a first top view shape; forming, above the semiconductor substrate, a second optical waveguide structure comprising a second top view shape; and forming, above the semiconductor substrate, a third optical waveguide structure, wherein the third optical waveguide structure is between the first optical waveguide structure and the second optical waveguide structure, wherein the third optical waveguide structure comprises a closed-loop optical waveguide structure with a third top view shape having a plurality of linear segments that are connected at interconnection points, and wherein an optical signal loss for the closed-loop optical waveguide structure is based on a segment-induced loss at the interconnection points. With respect to claim 15, Scheuer in view of Zhang and Smith as set forth above discloses the method of claim 14, wherein forming the first optical waveguide structure comprises: forming the first optical waveguide structure from a semiconductor layer that is above the semiconductor substrate; wherein forming the second optical waveguide structure comprises: forming the second optical waveguide structure from the semiconductor layer; and wherein forming the third optical waveguide structure comprises: forming the third optical waveguide structure from the semiconductor layer. Per claim 14, above. With respect to claim 16, Scheuer in view of Zhang and Smith as set forth above discloses the method of claim 14, wherein forming the first optical waveguide structure comprises: forming the first optical waveguide structure from a semiconductor layer that is above the semiconductor substrate; wherein forming the third optical waveguide structure comprises: forming the third optical waveguide structure from the semiconductor layer; and wherein forming the second optical waveguide structure comprises: depositing, in a recess horizontally adjacent to the third optical waveguide structure, dielectric material to form the second optical waveguide structure. Per claim 14, above, particularly re Smith. Smith ¶ 55 provides: "The etching processes used to fabricate the microresonator, however, invariably introduce surface roughness, that results in a scattering loss thereby degrading the Q of the cavity." The etching process is seen as creating recesses with the geometries present in the relevant figures. With respect to claim 17, Scheuer in view of Zhang and Smith as set forth above discloses the method of claim 14, including one wherein forming the third optical waveguide structure comprises: forming the third optical waveguide structure from a semiconductor layer that is above the semiconductor substrate (Smith ¶ 49, "The core 320 is partially etched to form a core ridge 324."); wherein forming the first optical waveguide structure comprises: depositing, in a first recess horizontally adjacent to a first side of the third optical waveguide structure, dielectric material to form the first optical waveguide structure (per Smith re claim 16 dielectric materials and etching/recesses); and wherein forming the second optical waveguide structure comprises: depositing, in a second recess horizontally adjacent to a second side of the third optical waveguide structure opposing the first side, dielectric material to form the second optical waveguide structure (per Smith re claim 16 dielectric materials and etching/recesses). With respect to claim 18, Scheuer in view of Zhang and Smith as set forth above discloses the method of claim 14, including one wherein forming the first optical waveguide structure comprises: forming the first optical waveguide structure from a semiconductor layer that is above the semiconductor substrate; wherein forming the third optical waveguide structure comprises: forming the third optical waveguide structure from the semiconductor layer; and wherein forming the second optical waveguide structure comprises: depositing, in a recess vertically adjacent to the third optical waveguide structure, dielectric material to form the second optical waveguide structure. The lithographic processes of the cited references are seen as applicable to any related semiconductor structure. With respect to claim 19, Scheuer in view of Zhang and Smith as set forth above discloses the method of claim 14, including one wherein forming the third optical waveguide structure comprises: forming the third optical waveguide structure from a semiconductor layer that is above the semiconductor substrate; wherein forming the first optical waveguide structure comprises: depositing, in a first recess horizontally adjacent to a first side of the third optical waveguide structure, dielectric material to form the first optical waveguide structure; and wherein forming the second optical waveguide structure comprises: depositing, in a second recess vertically adjacent to a second side of the third optical waveguide structure opposing the first side, dielectric material to form the second optical waveguide structure. The lithographic processes of the cited references are seen as applicable to any related semiconductor structure. With respect to claim 20, Scheuer in view of Zhang and Smith as set forth above discloses the method of claim 14, including one wherein forming the third optical waveguide structure comprises: forming the third optical waveguide structure from a semiconductor layer that is above the semiconductor substrate; wherein forming the first optical waveguide structure comprises: depositing, in a first recess vertically adjacent to a first side of the third optical waveguide structure, dielectric material to form the first optical waveguide structure; and wherein forming the second optical waveguide structure comprises: depositing, in a second recess vertically adjacent to a second side of the third optical waveguide structure opposing the first side, dielectric material to form the second optical waveguide structure. The lithographic processes of the cited references are seen as applicable to any related semiconductor structure. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed August 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the claim rejections are not rebutted. Applicant argues that: However, as discussed during the interview, a waveguide resonant cavity with a polygon shape, as described in ZHANG, does not disclose "a third optical waveguide structure, between the first optical waveguide structure and the second optical waveguide structure, comprising a closed-loop optical waveguide structure with a top view shape having a plurality of linear segments that are connected at interconnection points," much less that "an optical signal loss for the closed-loop optical waveguide structure is based on a segment-induced loss at the interconnection points," as recited in amended claim 1 (emphasis added). Examiner response: Applicant is not addressing the rejections as made. Consequently, the rejections are not rebutted. Here, Applicant argues that elements present in the primary reference of Scheuer are missing in Zhang. Applicant misses the way that an obviousness-type rejection works. The primary reference supplies certain elements/limitations and the secondary references shore up what’s missing in the primary reference. Secondary references will generally always omit that which is in the primary reference. The remaining arguments are similarly in error for the same reason. The rejections are not rebutted. Examiner does not recall the specific point Applicant makes regarding the substance of the interview. If it was made, examiner believes that the point made in response above would have been made. Applicant's arguments with regards to the remaining claims all rely upon the arguments set forth above. Consequently, these remaining arguments as seen as being addressed by the examiner's corresponding remarks. Applicant’s remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As such, the examiner makes no remarks regarding them. Conclusion Applicant’s publication US 20250224566 A1 published July 10, 2025 was previously cited. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references have elements related to Applicant’s disclosure and/or claims or are otherwise associated with the other cited references, particularly with respect to ring resonators and related optical structures. Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 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 ANDREW JORDAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1571. The examiner can normally be reached most days 1000-1800 PACIFIC TIME ZONE (messages are returned). 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. While examiner does not examine over the phone (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2), examiner is glad to clarify or discuss issues so long as it forwards prosecution. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas (Tom) 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. /Andrew Jordan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 V: (571) 270-1571 (Pacific time) F: (571) 270-2571 September 28, 2026