DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2008/0102598 to Herman et al.
Herman discloses in the abstract and figure 5, a structure for relieving mechanical stress comprising:
a substrate (12);
an indentation (10) formed in the substrate; and
a photonic layer (18) formed on the substrate.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0043205 to Luo et al.
Luo discloses in the abstract and figure 1, a structure for relieving mechanical stress comprising:
a substrate (100);
an indentation (108) formed in the substrate; and
a photonic layer (102) formed on the substrate.
As to claim 2, the dimensions shown meet the claimed inequalities (trench depth greater than the photonic layer and the trench width less than that of the photonic layer is shown in figure 1).
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.
Claim(s) 3-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of US 2016/0327743 to Kippenberg et al.
Luo discloses the invention as claimed except for certain arrangements of continuous and discontinuous layers. Luo discloses a generalized photonic chip wafer process that uses many layers (figures 1-2).
As to claim 10, Luo discloses pattern structures (figure 2iii shows the structures 16).
Claim 4 discloses that these layer materials be the same.
Claims 5-9 and 12-14 relate to sizing and periods not specifically disclosed in Luo. It is noted that both periods being different and being the same are claimed. Therefore, the periods of the structures appear to lack criticality.
As to claim 11, the structures on the left are parallel and staggered from the waveguide (WG) portions in the center.
Kippernberg discloses a wafer process that uses multiple steps to result in continuous and discontinuous layers as claimed to create specific waveguide structures in a layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange layers, provide similar materials and to set etched structures therein as taught by Kippenberg in Luo to create a patterned waveguide structure.
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Kittenberg as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2008/0102598 to Herman et al.
These claims relate to the dicing of sections of the photonic wafer previously rejected above. Luo in view of Kittenberg discloses the general wafer process and structure of an individual chip portion but fails to explicitly disclose the dicing lines needed at the wafer level. It is noted that no process would create a single chip and that these chips would be made on a whole wafer.
Herman discloses such wafers and dicing lines in figures 1-2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize the chip-level structure of Luo in view of Kittenberg would need to be produced at a wafer level with dicing lines such as in Herman for optimal yield and maintaining defect free wafer fabrication.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0124792 (abstract describes dicing and scribing).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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 on 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874