DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the election and amendment filed on May 7, 2026. Claims 1-31 remain pending, with claims 1-23 and 31 being “Withdrawn” from consideration as being related to non-elected Groups. In accordance with the amendments to the elected Group II, claims 24 and 27-30 have been amended.
Claims 24-30 are examined herein in a 1st office action the merits, with claim 24 as the sole examined independent claim.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with “partial” traverse of Group II, claims 24-30, in the reply filed on May 7, 2026 is acknowledged. The “partial” traversal is based on unexplained grounds, as there are no clear arguments / remarks for which the restriction requirement dated on March 13, 2026 is being traversed. This is not found persuasive because the restriction requirement dated March 13, 2026 meets each requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on March 13, 2024, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The original drawings (eight (8) pages) were received on March 13, 2024. These drawings are acknowledged.
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.
Claims 24, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ding et al. NPL “Efficient electro-optic modulation in low-loss graphene-plasmonic slot waveguides.”
Ding et al. NPL teaches (ABS; Figs. 1A-1C, 2A-2D, 3, 4; Entire Document; pgs. 15576-15581) a plasmonic device for generating a modulated optical signal (examples shown in Figs. 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A; “modulation” Title) comprising: a substrate (SiO2, Fig. 1A), a plasmonic section which includes first and second confining structures with a slot between the confining structures (see Fig. 1B, confining on left / right; note propagation for confinement of plasmon, Fig. 1C), wherein the slot is filled with an optical material and forms a plasmonic waveguide (negative space or recess in the “slot” is then formed with optical material(s)), at least two heat dissipation sections at least partially contacting the confining structures from at least one of a top and a side of the confining structures (upper “metal” layers Au / Ti which inherently will “dissipate heat” in a functional sense; AlO3 also dissipates some heat), with a gap between the heat dissipation sections, wherein the gap is wider than the slot (the gap between the upper Au / Ti sections is larger than the gap at the slot, Fig. 1B), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for sole examined independent claim 24.
Regarding dependent claims 27 and 30, the heat dissipation section(s) as defined by Ding NPL in claim 24 are both metal and inherently have a higher thermal conductivity than the SiO2 substrate, which meets all structure.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu Shiyang et al. NPL “High-efficiency Thermal-Tunable…”, and further in view of Lundquist et al. US 2014/0287964 A1 and Ding et al. NPL “Efficient electro-optic…”
Regarding independent claim 24, Zhu Shiyang NPL teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-3, notably Fig. 1b; Entire Document; Sections 4 and 5) a plasmonic device for generating a modulated optical signal (examples shown in Fig. 1b; modulation occurs via control / voltage; plasmonic waveguide ring resonator) comprising: a substrate (support), a plasmonic section (copper-capped area) which includes at least one confining structure with an optical material formed for a plasmonic waveguide (negative space or recess in the “slot” is then formed with optical material(s)); at least one heat dissipation section at least partially contacting the confining structure from at least one of a top and a side of the confining structures (section 4 and conclusion section 5 of Zhu NPL, will remove heat from optical / plasmonic area(s) of Fig. 1).
Regarding independent claim 24, Zhu NPL does not expressly and exactly teach that there are two confining structures with a slot therebetween, and that the heat dissipation occurs with at least two heat dissipation features that are located at least on top or one the side of the confining structures, and that a gap between the heat dissipation features is wider than the slot (width).
Ding NPL teaches (examples shown in Figs. 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A; “modulation” Title) as plasmonic device with at least two confining structures with a slot therebetween, with an optical material in/at the slot, and that at least two heat dissipation features are located above the confining structures, and in that the gap between heat dissipation features is larger than the width of the slot itself (see Ding Fig. 1B). Additionally, Lundquist et al. US 2014/0287964 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 7A, 7B, 7(cont.), 8; corresponding text, also note para [0182]; Claims) a slot 742 featured in confining structures 746, in which a metal / layer (which is “heat dissipative” in function, being a metal) 744 is located above the slot area (see Fig. 7(cont.) and Fig. 8; note para [0182] for function in plasmonic coupling as a capability of Lundquist), and in that the gap between heat dissipative elements 744 (at least partially, see Figs. 7(cont.) and 8, note gap gets wider) is wider than the slot. Such functional features of the metal layers (in both Ding NPL and Lundquist) are inherently dissipative of heat, and remove some heat from the area near the slot / optical material fill. Removing heat is a known problem in plasmonic coupling, based on some excess heat that is created near the waveguiding of the sub-wavelength region (such as in Zhu NPL).
Since Zhu NPL and Ding NPL / Lundquist are all from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Ding NPL / Lundquist would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Zhu NPL.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Ding NPL / Lundquist, to use a slot between confining structures, with the optical material filled into the gap and a metal / heat dissipative film/layer over the slot area, but with a gap between adjacent heat dissipative layers larger than the slot width (as in Ding NPL / Lundquist’s teachings), into the base design of the plasmonic device of Zhu NPL, to allow for improved heat removal of unwanted heat, with an obvious design of the metal layer(s), which is a known problem in plasmonic coupling, for improving waveguiding operation of the device. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of having at least two confining structures separates by a slot, and at least two heat dissipative sections over the slot, but also with a larger gap than the slot. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claim 24 is found obvious over Zhu NPL and further in view of Ding NPL / Lundquist (henceforth “COMBO1”).
Regarding dependent claims 25-30, all such features are either found within the references of COMBO1, or would have been obvious design choices as selectable ranges and materials of the optical sub-componentry. See KSR. For these reasons, dependent claims 25-30 would have been obvious over COMBO1.
Claims 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over F. Bello et al. NPL “Material Characterization and Thermal Performance…”, and further in view of Lundquist et al. US 2014/0287964 A1 and Ding et al. NPL “Efficient electro-optic…”
Regarding independent claim 24, Bello et al. NPL teaches (ABS; Fig. 1; Entire Document) a plasmonic device for generating a modulated optical signal (examples shown in Fig. 1; modulation occurs via controlled function in Bello) comprising: a substrate (Si photonic waveguide), a plasmonic section (Au plasmonic waveguide) which includes at least one confining structure with an optical material 20 formed for a plasmonic waveguide (negative space or recess in the “slot” is then formed with optical material(s)); at least one heat dissipation section (heat sink feature of Bello) at least partially contacting the confining structure from at least one of a top and a side of the confining structures (function formed as removal of heat from optical / plasmonic area(s) of Fig. 1 are desired).
Regarding independent claim 24, Bello NPL does not expressly and exactly teach that there are two confining structures with a slot therebetween, and that the heat dissipation occurs with at least two heat dissipation features that are located at least on top or one the side of the confining structures, and that a gap between the heat dissipation features is wider than the slot (width).
Ding NPL teaches (examples shown in Figs. 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A; “modulation” Title) as plasmonic device with at least two confining structures with a slot therebetween, with an optical material in/at the slot, and that at least two heat dissipation features are located above the confining structures, and in that the gap between heat dissipation features is larger than the width of the slot itself (see Ding Fig. 1B). Additionally, Lundquist et al. US 2014/0287964 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 7A, 7B, 7(cont.), 8; corresponding text, also note para [0182]; Claims) a slot 742 featured in confining structures 746, in which a metal / layer (which is “heat dissipative” in function, being a metal) 744 is located above the slot area (see Fig. 7(cont.) and Fig. 8; note para [0182] for function in plasmonic coupling as a capability of Lundquist), and in that the gap between heat dissipative elements 744 (at least partially, see Figs. 7(cont.) and 8, note gap gets wider) is wider than the slot. Such functional features of the metal layers (in both Ding NPL and Lundquist) are inherently dissipative of heat, and remove some heat from the area near the slot / optical material fill. Removing heat is a known problem in plasmonic coupling, based on some excess heat that is created near the waveguiding of the sub-wavelength region (such as in Bello NPL).
Since Bello NPL and Ding NPL / Lundquist are all from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Ding NPL / Lundquist would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Bello NPL.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Ding NPL / Lundquist, to use a slot between confining structures, with the optical material filled into the gap and a metal / heat dissipative film/layer over the slot area, but with a gap between adjacent heat dissipative layers larger than the slot width (as in Ding NPL / Lundquist’s teachings), into the base design of the plasmonic device of Bello NPL, to allow for improved heat removal of unwanted heat, with an obvious design of the metal layer(s), which is a known problem in plasmonic coupling, for improving waveguiding operation of the device. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of having at least two confining structures separates by a slot, and at least two heat dissipative sections over the slot, but also with a larger gap than the slot. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claim 24 is found obvious over Bello NPL and further in view of Ding NPL / Lundquist (henceforth “COMBO2”).
Regarding dependent claims 25-30, all such features are either found within the references of COMBO2, or would have been obvious design choices as selectable ranges and materials of the optical sub-componentry. See KSR. For these reasons, dependent claims 25-30 would have been obvious over COMBO2.
Claims 25, 26, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. NPL “Efficient electro-optic modulation in low-loss graphene-plasmonic slot waveguides”, standing alone.
Regarding independent claim 24, Ding et al. NPL teaches (ABS; Figs. 1A-1C, 2A-2D, 3, 4; Entire Document; pgs. 15576-15581) a plasmonic device for generating a modulated optical signal (examples shown in Figs. 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A; “modulation” Title) comprising: a substrate (SiO2, Fig. 1A), a plasmonic section which includes first and second confining structures with a slot between the confining structures (see Fig. 1B, confining on left / right; note propagation for confinement of plasmon, Fig. 1C), wherein the slot is filled with an optical material and forms a plasmonic waveguide (negative space or recess in the “slot” is then formed with optical material(s)), at least two heat dissipation sections at least partially contacting the confining structures from at least one of a top and a side of the confining structures (upper “metal” layers Au / Ti which inherently will “dissipate heat” in a functional sense; AlO3 also dissipates some heat), with a gap between the heat dissipation sections, wherein the gap is wider than the slot (the gap between the upper Au / Ti sections is larger than the gap at the slot, Fig. 1B).
Regarding further dependent claims 25, 26, 28, and 29, there is no express and exact teaching found within Ding NPL itself for the gap of the heat dissipation (5 um apart, claim 25), exact “organic nonlinear” material (claim 26), or the exact thermal conductivity value (100 W per Meter and Kelvin at 293K; claim 28), or the thickness of the heat dissipation feature (500 nm or more, claim 29). However, at a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such as the distance value of the slot, using an organic nonlinear material, selecting a thermal conductivity value, or the select a thickness value of the heat dissipation, because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Each selectable feature as a design choice would improve the removal of heat from the slot / filled optical core which propagates plasmons. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Ding NPL to perform equally well with such features as the plasmonic / optical dependencies (for the plasmon and heat removal) because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve plasmonic coupling by removing excess heat from the system. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with a plasmonic coupling device such as in Ding NPL. Further, the base structure of the sole independent claim 24 is clearly and fully anticipated by Ding NPL. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) Ding NPL to obtain the invention as specified in claims 25, 26, 28, and 29. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references A, C-E, and N, which pertain to the state of the art of plasmonic / optical devices that modulate signals in an integrated opto-electronic design, or use heat dissipation features to remove unwanted heat.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 PM.
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 (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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 June 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights