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 § 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0225555 to Gould in view of US 8,427,738 to Stievater et al.
Gould discloses in figures 1A-1E, an apparatus for modulating an optical wave, the apparatus comprising:
A slot waveguide structure that includes:
A first higher-index structure doped to include a region that has a first conductivity type (160; paragraph 86),
A second higher-index structure doped to include a region that has the first conductivity type (162), and
One or more slot regions between (figure 1B) that consists of a gas (air) having a lower index of refraction than the first and second regions;
A first support structure (121) configured and enabled to move to change the dimension of the slot waveguide (paragraphs 75-76); and
A second support structure (123) configured and enabled to move to change the dimension of the slot waveguide (paragraphs 75-76).
As to claim 2, additional slot waveguide areas are disclosed in figure 3.
As to claim 3, a third higher index structure (122) is disclosed.
As to claim 4, the device is configured to move relative the center support region 122.
As to claim 5, multiple modes are disclosed and with the modulation techniques disclosed in paragraph 63, an output is generated and coupled (paragraph 64).
As to claim 8, the structures are connected (figure 1A via 130 and 132).
As to claim 9, voltage is applied (paragraph 77).
As to claims 10-11 and 14, MachZehnder structures are disclosed (paragraph 63).
As to claim 12, the device is configured to modulate phase (paragraph 63).
As to claim 13, amplitude is modulated (paragraph 63).
As to claims 15-18, the components are integrated (figure 1A).
However, Gould fails to explicitly disclose the dopant concentrations in areas to enable the movement via the p-doped and n-doped semiconductor profile. Gould does not limit the movement to be mechanical.
As to claims 6-7, these dopant concentrations are not disclosed.
Claim 19 relates to the above but adds the doping language that is missing.
Claim 20 adds voltage language similar to claim 9 above but is dependent upon independent claim 19.
Stievater et al. discloses in the abstract using such doped areas to tune and vary the slot gap distances by electrostatically actuating the suspended waveguides.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the electrostatic means taught by Stievater and optimize the dopant concentrations in Gould as an alternative means to mechanically actuating movement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2010/0316342 (photonic crystal-based waveguide modulation with electrodes).
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
Prosecution Insights