DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. This office is responsive to applicant’s amendment 05/06/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-2, 11-13, 15-17, 19 have amended.
The applicant’s amendment along with the remark result in new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 set forth as discussed below using new cited prior arts (i.e. Nagata (JPH 11111688 A1); Marks et al. (US 2008/0212914 A1), Reig Escale (EP 3919949 A1); Carothers et al. (US 2019/0154933 A1) and/or previous cited prior art Aminpur for claims 1-18.
Claims 19-20 are allowed in view of applicant’s amendment along with the remark.
Response to Argument
3. Regarding to previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) with respect to claim 1, the applicants stated:
“Further, to the extent that the first hard mask layer 540 and/or the second hard mask layer 550 of Aminpur could be considered to disclose or suggest an "electro-optic metal oxide layer comprising a barium titanate layer or a strontium titanate layer" as recited in claim 1, there is nevertheless no disclosure or suggestion of the limitation of "providing a cladding layer over the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer, wherein the cladding layer has an index of refraction that is less than an index of refraction of the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer" as is additionally recited in claim 1 as amended. Rather, Aminpur discloses that the hard mask layers 540 and 550 that are patterned to form the respective hard masks 740 and 650 are temporary masking structures used for gate conductor patterning and are removed from the structure after completing this function. See Aminpur, col. 7, lines 9-10 ("As shown in FIG. 8, the patterned hard mask 650 (FIGS. 6-7) may be removed...") and col. 7, lines 31-32 (As shown in FIG. 9, the selectively etched hardmask 740 (FIGS. 7-8) may be removed..."). There is no disclosure or suggestion anywhere in Aminpur of providing a cladding layer or any other layer over the temporary hard mask layers 540 and 550 after they have been patterned to form the hard masks 740 and 650. Instead, these layers are completely removed from the structure before any other layers or materials are provided.
Accordingly, Aminpur fails to disclose or suggest the limitation of "providing a cladding layer over the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer, wherein the cladding layer has an index of refraction that is less than an index of refraction of the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer" as recited in amended claim 1.”
The applicant’s amendment along with the remark were sufficient to overcome the examiner’s previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aminpur (US 6,482,726). However, upon further consideration, new ground of rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 was set forth as discussed below for claims 1-18.
Regarding to previous ground of rejection with respect to claims 19-20, the applicants stated:
“In rejecting claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Office Action admits that "Aminpur fails to disclose performing a second anisotropic dry etching process having a higher ion bombardment than the first anisotropic dry etching process to remove residual materials not removed by the first anisotropic dry etching process and to form a patterned metal oxide layer." See Office Action, pp. 8-9. To cure these admitted deficiencies, the Office Action cites Rauf as allegedly disclosing "a second anisotropic dry etching process having higher ion bombardment than a first anisotropic dry etching process to remove residual materials and reduce metal foot or ledge features." Id., p. 9 (citing Rauf, paragraphs [0024]-[0027]; FIGS. 7 and 10).
Regardless, Rauf is also directed to transistor gate fabrication-specifically, etching metal gate electrodes-and not to electro-optic devices. See Rauf, paragraph [0002] ("The present invention relates to the fabrication of metal gate electrodes used in semiconductor devices"). Rauf does not disclose an "electro-optic metal oxide layer" or "providing a cladding layer over the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer, wherein the cladding layer has an index of refraction that is less than an index of refraction of the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer" as recited in amended independent claim 19.
Further, in rejecting claim 19, the Office Action asserts that a person of ordinary skill
would have utilized Rauf’s higher-ion-bombardment second etch for patterning a hard mask layer as disclosed by Aminpur. See Office Action, p. 9. However, even if such a combination were made, the resulting process would still involve temporary hard mask structures used to pattern a gate conductor. As discussed above, Aminpur discloses that the hard mask layers are removed after gate formation and do not form a permanent part of the final device structure. Thus, even under the proposed combination, there would be no basis for "providing a cladding layer over the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer" as recited in claim 19 as amended, because the patterned layer (i.e., hard mask) is not retained in the final device. Neither Aminpur nor Rauf, taken alone or in proper combination, disclose or suggest "providing a cladding layer over the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer, wherein the cladding layer has an index of refraction that is less than an index of refraction of the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer."
For these reasons, Applicant submits that claim 19 is patentable over the cited references because neither of these references, taken individually or in proper combination, disclose or suggest all limitations recited in this claim as amended. Applicant further submits claim 20 is patentable over the cited references by virtue of its dependence on allowable claim 19 as well as for the additional limitations recited therein. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the rejections of claim 19 and 20 are overcome and that these claims should be allowed.”
The applicant’s amendment along with the remark were sufficient to overcome the examiner’s previous ground of rejection with respect to claims 19-20. Claims 19-20 are allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. (JPH 11111688 A) in view of Marks et al. (US 2008/0212914 A1).
Note:
Regarding to claim 1, Nagata discloses an etching method, comprising:
forming an electro-optic metal oxide layer comprising a barium titanate layer or a strontium titanate layer over a substrate (paragraph [0003]-[0004], [0014];
forming a patterned masking layer (i.e. photoresist) over the electro-optic metal oxide layer (paragraph [0007]);
performing an anisotropic dry etching (i.e. plasma-based etching such as electron cyclotron resonance (ECR) plasma etching, reactive ion etching (RIE) process to etch the electro-optic metal oxide layer in regions not covered by the patterned masking layer (See paragraph [0003], [0005], [0014]-[0018], [0021], [0023]);
performing an isotropic wet etching process to remove residual materials (i.e. reaction products) not removed by the anisotropic dry etching process and to form a patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer (paragraph [0019]-[0021]; and
As to claim 1, Nagata fails to disclose providing a cladding layer over the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer, wherein the cladding layer has an index of refraction that is less than an index of refraction of the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer. However, Nagata clearly discloses to create an optical waveguide having electro-optic metal oxide using an etching process (paragraph [0002]). Marks teaches a method for forming a waveguide comprises the step of providing a cladding layer over the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer, wherein the cladding layer has an index of refraction that is less than an index of refraction of the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer (paragraph [0006], [0011], [0047]-[0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagata in view of Marks by providing a cladding layer over the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer, wherein the cladding layer has an index of refraction that is less than an index of refraction of the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer because the top and lower cladding are not only for the waveguiding, but also provide and buffer layers between the metal and waveguiding layer to reduce metal optical loss (paragraph 0047). Further, equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 3, Nagata discloses the anisotropic dry etching process comprises one or more of reactive ion etching (RIE), electron-cyclotron resonance RIE (paragraph [0003], [0021], [0023]).
As to claim 4, Nagata discloses the anisotropic dry etching uses at least one etchant material comprising Ar or CF4 (paragraph [0005]-[0006], [0009], [0015], [0021], [0022]).
As to claim 5, Nagata discloses the at least one etchant material further comprises at least one of O2 (paragraph [0009]m [0015]).
As to claim 6, Nagata discloses the anisotropic dry etching comprises a dry plasma etching (abstract, paragraph [0003], [0021], [0023]).
As to claim 7, Nagata discloses the isotropic wet etching process uses at least one etchant material comprises nitric acid (paragraph [0019], [0021]).
As to claim 8, Nagata discloses the residual materials comprises at least one of a barium or strontium compound (paragraph [0004], [0014], [0020]).
As to claim 9, Nagata discloses the patterned masking layer comprises photoresist (paragraph [0007]).
8. Claim 2, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. (JPH 11111688 A) in view of Marks et al. (US 2008/0212914 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-9 above, and further in view of Aminpur et al. (US 6,482,726)
As to claim 2, Nagata and Marks fail to disclose the isotropic wet etching process forms undercut etched regions in the electro-optic metal oxide layer (i.e. barium titanate or strontium titanate) under portions of the patterned masking layer. However, Nagata clearly teaches isotropic wet etching process in the electro-optic metal oxide layer. Aminpur teaches the isotropic wet etching process forms undercut etched regions in the electro-optic metal oxide layer (i.e. barium titanate or strontium titanate) under portions of the patterned masking layer (See col. 5 lines 40-51, col. 6 lines 41-67, Fig 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagata in Marks in view of Aminpur by the isotropic wet etching process forms undercut etched regions in the electro-optic metal oxide layer because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 10, Nagata and Marks fail to disclose removing the patterned masking layer before performing the isotropic wet etching process. However, Nagata clearly discloses the patterned mask comprises photoresist (paragraph [0007]). Aminpur discloses removing the patterned masking layer (570) before performing the isotropic wet etching process (col. 6 lines 41-67, Fig 6-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagata and Marks in view of Aminpur by removing the patterned masking layer before performing the isotropic wet etching process because it helps to remove undesired masking layer after creating a pattern.
9. Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. (JPH 11111688 A) in view of Marks et al. (US 2008/0212914 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-9 above, and further in view of Reig Escale (EP 3919949 A1).
As to claim 11, Nagata and Marks fail to disclose the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer contains a ridge portion having tapered sidewalls and horizontal layer portions located on each side of the ridge portion over the substrate. However, Nagata clearly discloses to etch the electro-optic metal oxide layer to create a pattern. Reig Escale discloses to etch the electro-optic metal oxide (102) to create the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer contains a ridge portion (8) having tapered sidewalls and horizontal layer portions (102) located on each side of the ridge portion over the substrate (paragraph [0094] [0145]-[0154], Fig 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagata and Marks in view of Reig Escale by having the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer contains a ridge portion having tapered sidewalls and horizontal layer portions located on each side of the ridge portion over the substrate because it helps to create a pattern on the device layer of the optical device.
As to claim 12, Nagata and Marks fail to disclose the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer comprises a waveguide layer of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. However, Nagata clearly discloses the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer comprises a waveguide layer (paragraph 0004, 0005, 0007, 0012, 0020). Reig Escale discloses the optical waveguide includes the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer comprises a waveguide layer of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI) (See paragraph [0137], [0138], [0165]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagata and Marks in view of Reig Escale by having the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer comprises a waveguide layer of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 13, Nagata discloses the electro-optic metal oxide layers comprises the barium titanate layer (paragraph [0004], [0014]).
As to claim 14, Nagata and Marks fail to disclose forming a first electrode and a second electrode on the horizontal layer portions. Reig Escale discloses forming a first electrode (105 left hand side) and a second electrode (105 right hand side) on the horizontal layer portions (102) (See Fig 4, Fig 8, paragraph [0155], [0157] [0158, [0172], [0178]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagata and Marks in view of Reig Escale by forming a first electrode and a second electrode on the horizontal layer portions because it is for tuning the refractive index of the waveguide, in particular of the rib or strip, via an applied DC or AC voltage (paragraph 0122, 0163).
As to claim 15, Nagata discloses the electro-optic metal oxide layer comprises the strontium titanate layer (paragraph [0004], [0014]).
10. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. (JPH 11111688 A) in view of Marks et al. (US 2008/0212914 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-9 above, and further in view of Carothers et al. (US 2019/0154933 A1).
As to claim 16, Nagata discloses forming the electro-optic oxide layer comprises forming the strontium titanate or barium titanate over a substrate (paragraph [0004], [0014]. As to claim 16, Nagata and Marks fail to disclose forming the barium titanate layer over the strontium titanate. Carothers teaches discloses forming the electro-optic oxide layer comprises forming the strontium titanate and forming barium titanate over a the strontium titanate layer (See paragraph 0022; Carothers’ claims 18; multi-layer for the core layers). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagata and Marks in view of Carothers by forming the barium titanate layer over the strontium titanate because it helps to create multi-layer core layers.
11. Claim 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. (JPH 11111688 A) in view of Marks et al. (US 2008/0212914 A1) and Carothers et al. (US 2019/0154933 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Reig Escale (EP 3919949 A1).
As to claim 17, Nagata, Marks and Carothers fail to disclose the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer contains a ridge portion having tapered sidewalls and horizontal layer portions located on each side of the ridge portion over the substrate. However, Nagata clearly discloses to etch the electro-optic metal oxide layer to create a pattern. Reig Escale discloses to etch the electro-optic metal oxide (102) to create the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer contains a ridge portion (8) having tapered sidewalls and horizontal layer portions (102) located on each side of the ridge portion over the substrate (paragraph [0094] [0145]-[0154], Fig 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagata, Marks and Carothers in view of Reig Escale by having the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer contains a ridge portion having tapered sidewalls and horizontal layer portions located on each side of the ridge portion over the substrate because it helps to create a pattern on the device layer of the optical device.
As to claim 18, Nagata, Marks and Carothers fail to disclose the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer comprises a waveguide layer of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. However, Nagata clearly discloses the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer comprises a waveguide layer (paragraph 0004, 0005, 0007, 0012, 0020). Reig Escale discloses the optical waveguide includes the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer comprises a waveguide layer of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI) (See paragraph [0137], [0138], [0165]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagata, Marks and Carothers in view of Reig Escale by having the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer comprises a waveguide layer of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 19-20 are allowed.
13. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior arts fail to disclose or suggest performing a second anisotropic dry etching process having a higher ion bombardment than the first anisotropic dry etching process to remove residual materials not removed by the first anisotropic dry etching process and to form a patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer; and
providing a cladding layer over the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer, wherein the cladding layer has an index of refraction that is less than an index of refraction of the patterned electro-optic metal oxide layer.
Conclusion
14. Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH X TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
BINH X. TRAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights