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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species A in the reply filed on 04 August, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “polled” should be “poled”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1: “the ferroelectric material defining or in communication with a portion of the first arm and the second arm” is unclear. What is required structurally for a material to be “in communication with a portion of the first arm and the second arm”? Whether they are required to be in contact or if there are layers between the portion and the first arm and second arm, the claim should make the structural relationship clear. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted as requiring the ferroelectric material to have a portion that is in the optical path of the first arm and another portion in the optical path of the second arm.
Also regarding claim 1: It is unclear what is meant by “wherein the first arm has a first domain orientation and the second arm has a second domain orientation”. The claim does not connect the domain orientation to the ferroelectric material, and the ferroelectric material is not required to be present in the first arm or the second arm, since it could merely be in communication with portions of the first arm and the second arm. However, from the disclosure, it is understood that the domain orientations refer to the ferroelectric material itself. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that a portion of the ferroelectric material defining or in communication with the first arm has a first domain orientation and a portion of the ferroelectric material defining or in communication with the second arm has a second domain orientation.
Also regarding claim 1:It is unclear what is meant by “phase parameter”. It is not defined in the disclosure or shown in the drawings. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted as a phase difference induced in the light between the two arms of the interferometer.
Also regarding claim 1: It is unclear what is meant by “loading layers”. Are these specifically referring to layers that form a strip-loaded waveguide? If so, it is unclear because waveguides are not mentioned in claim 1. Since the claim is confusing, examiner looked to the specification for clarity. Paragraph 0023 says that 175, 170, and 185 may be loading layers. Paragraph 0025 says that these layers may be SiO.sub.2, SiN, or Si, and these layers are present in Fig. 1b, where they are cladding around a waveguide. Therefore, for the purpose of examination, loading layers are interpreted as any layers involved in guiding light in the arms of the MZI besides the ferroelectric material, which is separately claimed. This would include cladding and core layers, consistent with Applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 1: It is unclear what the boundaries of the claimed “first arm” and “second arm” are. Claim 1 says that the ferroelectric material may be “defining or in communication with a portion of the first arm and the second arm”, so the ferroelectric material could possibly be included in the first arm and the second arm; further, claim 1 says that the arms have phase parameters and domain orientations, which are also unclear attributes as explained above; finally, claim 1 says that “the portion of the first arm comprises a portion of one or more loading layers, wherein the portion of the second arm comprises a portion of one or more loading layers”, suggesting that there may be some overlap between the unclear “loading layers” and the unclear “arms”. The only feature that is clearly attributed to the arms is that they are in optical communication with an MZI input and an MZI output. It is conventional in the art to refer to waveguides of an MZI modulator as arms, but the claim and the disclosure appear to define “arms” more broadly (see, for example, claim 2 which requires that the arms comprise waveguides and additional elements). However, the structural elements corresponding to the arms need to be made clear. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is considering the arms to include any part of an MZI modulator closer to one waveguide “arm”, in its conventional sense noted above, of the interferometer structure than the other waveguide “arm”, not limited to a waveguide core but possibly including surrounding cladding layers and/or electrodes.
Regarding claim 2: Claim 2 further limits “wherein the ferroelectric material defining a portion of the second arm” but claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, does not require the ferroelectric material to define a portion of the second arm, since it is an optional limitation. For the purpose of examination, this is interpreted as a required feature.
Regarding claim 5: “a single differential drive signal line, the single differential drive signal line comprising a first differential signal line (S1) and a second differential signal line (S2)” is confusing because it is unclear how a single signal line can comprise two signal lines. For the purpose of examination, it is understood that the claim requires two signal lines, S1 and S2.
Regarding claim 12: “wherein each pulse is operable to induce an electric field of at least about 40 kV/mm in LiNbO3, or at least enough to overcome a coercive field of the ferroelectric material” is unclear because the claim does not require the ferroelectric material to be LiNbO3, nor connect the LiNbO3 of this claim to the claimed ferroelectric material. Therefore, it is not clear what is required by the limitation, since a pulse could induce an electric field of at least 40 kV/mm in LiNbO3 which is not present in the device and have no impact on the structure of the claimed device.
Regarding claims 2-16: Dependent claims 2-16 inherently contain all of the deficiencies of any base and/or intervening claims from which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (US 2023/0213792; hereinafter Guo).
Regarding claim 1: Guo disclosesAn electro-optical modulator system (Figs. 1-2) comprising: a ferroelectric material (Fig. 2, lithium niobate thin film) having one or more crystal orientation axes (see paragraph 0036, x-cut lithium niobate thin film inherently has one or more crystal orientation axes); and a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI) modulator (Fig. 1 shows that the modulator has a Mach-Zehnder interferometer structure) comprising an MZI input (Fig. 1, input waveguide 1 and beam splitter 2), an MZI output (Fig. 1, beam combiner 4 and output waveguide 5), a first arm and a second arm (as explained in the 112(b) rejection above, the arms are interpreted as including any part of an MZI modulator closer to one waveguide of the interferometer structure than the other waveguide, not limited to a waveguide core but possibly including surrounding cladding layers and/or electrodes), wherein the first arm and the second arm are in optical communication with the MZI input and the MZI output (the waveguides of the first arm and the second arm are in optical communication with the MZI input and the MZI output), the ferroelectric material defining or in communication with a portion of the first arm and the second arm (Fig. 2 shows that the ridges 3-3 and 3-4 are formed by the ferroelectric material; therefore, the ferroelectric material is considered to define a portion of the first arm and the second arm), wherein the first arm has a first phase parameter and the second arm has a second phase parameter (the modulator is an interferometer, which is operated to induce phase difference between the two arms, which are considered to be first and second phase parameters), wherein the first arm has a first domain orientation (see Fig. 2, right-pointing arrow labeled polarization directions of ferroelectric domains) and the second arm has a second domain orientation (see Fig. 2, left-pointing arrow), wherein the second domain orientation is substantially opposite the first domain orientation (Fig. 2 shows this), wherein the portion of the first arm comprises a portion of one or more loading layers (layers 12 and 10 are considered to be loading layers; the portions of 10 and 12 cladding the ridge of the first arm is considered to be a portion of the first arm comprising a portion of one or more loading layers), wherein the portion of the second arm comprises a portion of one or more loading layers (the portions of 10 and 12 cladding the ridge of the second arm is considered to be a portion of the second arm comprising a portion of one or more loading layers).
Regarding claim 2: Guo disclosesThe electro-optical modulator system of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the ferroelectric material defining a portion of the second arm comprises one or more volumes of domain-engineered materials (see paragraph 0011), the first arm further comprising a first waveguide (the waveguides include the cores, made of ferroelectric material, and the cladding, part of the loading layers), the second arm further comprising a second waveguide (the waveguides include the cores, made of ferroelectric material, and the cladding, part of the loading layers), wherein each waveguide comprises a respective portion of one or more loading layers.
Regarding claim 3: Guo disclosesThe electro-optical modulator system of claim 2 (as applied above), wherein the one or more volumes of domain-engineered materials were poled to change the first domain orientation and the second domain orientation (see paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 4: Guo discloses the electro-optical modulator system of claim 1, as applied above. The limitation “wherein the first phase parameter differs from the second phase parameter by about 180 degrees” is considered an intended use of the modulator, since the phase difference between the two arms is modulated by applying an appropriate voltage. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II. When it is desired to induce a 180 degree phase difference in light traveling between the two modulator arms, application of a suitable light signal and a suitable voltage will provide this feature, and the prior art structure is thus capable of performing the intended use.
Regarding claim 5: Guo disclosesThe electro-optical modulator system of claim 1 (as applied above) further comprising a single differential drive signal line (see paragraph 0008 and 0054), the single differential drive signal line comprising a first differential signal line (S1) and a second differential signal line (S2) (see Figs. 1-2, signal electrodes 7-1 and 7-3), wherein S1 is in electrical communication with the first arm and S2 is in electrical communication with the second arm (see paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 6: Guo disclosesThe electro-optical modulator system of claim 5 (as applied above) further comprising a traveling wave electrode (see paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 9: Guo disclosesThe electro-optical modulatory system of claim 1 (as applied above) further comprising a driver (see paragraph 0054) comprising one or more ground electrodes (Figs. 1-2, ground electrode 7-2) and one or more signal conductors (Figs. 1-2, signal electrodes 7-1 and 7-3), the driver operable to electro-optically modulate a first arm and a second arm of an electro-optical modulator in response to an input signal to at least one of the one or more signal conductors (see paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 14: Guo teachesThe electro-optical modulator system of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the ferroelectric material is LiNbO3 (see paragraph 0030).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (US 2023/0213792; hereinafter Guo), as evidenced by Mackwitz et al. (“Periodic domain inversion in x-cut single-crystal lithium niobate thin film”, Appl. Phys. Lett., 2016; hereinafter Mackwitz).
Regarding claim 10: Guo teachesThe electro-optical modulator system of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein one or more of the crystal orientation axes of the ferroelectric material in the first arm are changed with respect to one or more of the crystal orientation axes in the ferroelectric material in the second arm (as evidenced by Mackwitz, see left column of page 109, the domain walls between the inverted regions distort the crystal lattice, inherently changing one or more of the crystal orientation axes of the ferroelectric material in the first arm with respect to one or more of the crystal orientation axes in the ferroelectric material of the second arm).
Regarding claim 11: Guo discloses the electro-optical modulator system of claim 10, as applied above. Additionally, Guo discloses that poling is done by application of a high electric field. The limitation “wherein the crystal orientation axes of the first arm are inverted by application of a plurality of high voltage pulses, each pulse comprising a high voltage and a low voltage, wherein the high voltage ranges from about 100 volts to about 500 volts, wherein the low voltage ranges from about 0 volts to less than about 100 volts” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Since the device has the claimed structure, it is considered to meet the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 12: Guo discloses the electro-optical modulator system of claim 11, as applied above. The limitation “wherein each pulse is operable to induce an electric field of at least about 40 kV/mm in LiNbO3, or at least enough to overcome a coercive field of the ferroelectric material” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Since the device has the claimed structure, it is considered to meet the limitations of the claim.
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.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 2023/0213792; hereinafter Guo) in view of Takano et al. (US 2023/0400718; hereinafter Takano).
Regarding claim 15: Guo teaches the electro-optical modulator system of claim 1, as applied above. Guo fails to teach that the ferroelectric material is LiTaO3. Takano, also related to optical modulators including ferroelectric material (see paragraph 0023), teaches that the waveguides of the modulator can be made of a plurality of ferroelectric materials, including LiTaO.sub.3 (see paragraph 0282). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the LiNbO.sub.3 ferroelectric material of the Guo device for LiTaO.sub.3, another known ferroelectric material, in order to have better thermal stability.
Regarding claim 16: Guo teaches the electro-optical modulator system of claim 1, as applied above. Guo fails to teach that the ferroelectric material is BaTiO3. Guo fails to teach that the ferroelectric material is BaTiO3. Takano, also related to optical modulators including ferroelectric material (see paragraph 0023), teaches that the waveguides of the modulator can be made of a plurality of ferroelectric materials, including BaTiO.sub.3 (see paragraph 0282). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the LiNbO.sub.3 ferroelectric material of the Guo device for BaTiO.sub.3, another known ferroelectric material, in order to have better modulation efficiency.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 2023/0213792; hereinafter Guo), as evidenced by the admitted prior art of the present disclosure.
Regarding claim 7: Guo discloses the electro-optical modulator system of claim 6, as applied above. Guo fails to disclose that the traveling wave electrode comprises a first outer ground electrode (G1) and a second outer ground electrode (G2) with signal line (S1) and signal line (S2) disposed between G1 and G2. However, as evidenced by the admitted prior art of the present disclosure, a ground-signal-ground-signal-ground electrode structure is conventional in the art (see paragraph 0015). As a matter of obvious design choice, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Guo device by providing a first outer ground electrode (G1) and a second outer ground electrode (G2) with signal line (S1) and signal line (S2) disposed between G1 and G2 since it is a conventional electrode structure, for improved signal integrity.
Regarding claim 8: Modified Guo teachesThe electro-optical modulator system of claim 7 (as applied above) further comprising a middle electrode (G3), where G3 is a biasing pad or middle ground electrode, wherein G3 is disposed between S1 and S2 (see Guo Figs. 1-2, ground electrode 7-2).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 2023/0213792; hereinafter Guo) in view of Takano et al. (US 2023/0400718; hereinafter Takano), as evidenced by the present disclosure.
Modified Guo teaches the electro-optical modulator system of claim 7, as applied above. Although Guo does disclose that the signal electrodes are driven, Guo is silent as to how a driver is connected to the signal electrodes S1 and S2. Takano teaches that electrodes can be connected to drivers (“signal input”) via wire bonding (see paragraph 0271). In order to transmit electrical signals to the signal electrodes S1 and S2 to control the modulator, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Guo device by connecting S1 and S2 to a driver by wire bonding, since it was known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights