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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-117245, filed on July 19, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on June 07, 2024 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Four (4) sheets of drawings were filed on June 06, 2024.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The drawings do not illustrate certain essential features of the claimed invention that are capable of being shown. In particular, claims 1 and 2 recite “maximum domain width” of the dielectric film and the stress relaxation layer. It is unclear what area of the dielectric film and the stress relaxation layer the maximum domain width is refereeing to, as the drawings lack support and fail to illustrate the specific feature.
Therefore, the maximum domain of the dielectric film and the stress relaxation layer must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become
aware in the specification.
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.
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 1-6 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. Claim 1 recites “the dielectric thin film… has a maximum domain width greater than a maximum domain width of the stress relaxation layer.” It is unclear what structural limitation are intended to be defined the term “domain” as, as the specification and drawings lack os support and fail to illustrate or describe the specific features of the “domain.” Even with the support of Par. [0086] of the applications specification, the claim recites "domains," but the specification attempts to define this property by measuring "crystals" (3a, 3b) and a "phase" (3c). Because domains (regions of uniform polarization) and crystals are physically different structures, the examiner cannot determine if the claim limits the width of the ferroelectric domains themselves, or simply the widths of the crystallite grains.
As a result, a meaningful formulation of art rejections cannot be done at this time. See
MPEP 2173.06 II, 2nd paragraph:
… where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. … a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Therefore, the limitation of claim in quotation above has not been further considered with respect to prior art. This is not an indication of allowable subject matter.
Claim 2 recites “…the maximum domain width of the stress relaxation layer is 20 nm to 70 nm.” It is unclear what structural limitation are intended to be defined the term domain as, as the specification and drawing lack support and fail to illustrate or describe the specific features of the domain. Even with the support of Par. [0086] of the applications specification, the claim recites "domains," but the specification attempts to define this property by measuring "crystals" (3a, 3b) and a "phase" (3c). Because domains (regions of uniform polarization) and crystals are physically different structures, the examiner cannot determine if the claim limits the width of the ferroelectric domains themselves, or simply the widths of the crystallite grains.
As a result, a meaningful formulation of art rejections cannot be done at this time. See
MPEP 2173.06 II, 2nd paragraph:
… where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. … a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Therefore, claim 2 has not been further considered with respect to prior art. This is not an indication of allowable subject matter.
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.
Claim 1, 3, and 5-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Iwatsuka et al.(US-20150138619-A1), hereafter Iwatsuka, in view of Okunaga et al. (US-20250260383-A1). The applied reference has common applicant and inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 1, Iwatsuka discloses a substrate with a dielectric thin film (FIG. 2) comprising: a single-crystal substrate (Single-crystal substrate 4); a stress relaxation layer (lithium niobate film 5) formed in contact with a main surface of the single-crystal substrate (FIG.2); and a dielectric thin film (Buffer layer 7. Par. [0029]:Buffer layer has a dielectric constant) formed in contact with the stress relaxation layer (lithium niobate film 5), wherein the stress relaxation layer is made of a c-axis-oriented epitaxial film (Par. [0039]: The lithium niobate film 5 can be easily formed as a c-axis oriented epitaxial film), and includes: a twin crystal structure of LiNbO3 including a first crystal and a second crystal that is rotated 180° about a c-axis with respect to the first crystal (Par. [0042]); The dielectric thin film has a thickness of 0.5 μm to 2 μm (Par.[0054]).
Iwatsuka fails to disclose the stress relaxation layer has a LiNb3O8 phase, the dielectric thin film is made of a lithium niobate film which is a c-axis-oriented epitaxial film, has the twin crystal structure of LiNbO3.
Okunaga teaches a stress relaxation layer (piezoelectric layer 5) with a LiNb3O8 phase (Par. [0057]), (Par. [0068]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the stress relaxation layer of Iwatsuka by incorporating the LiNb3O8 phase taught by Okunaga. A person of ordinary skill in the art would know the LiNb3O8 phase is beneficial as a stress relaxation layer for lithium niobate thin films. Because of its layered crystalline structure and lithium-deficient stoichiometry, this phase readily accommodates structural defects and internal stresses without cracking. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to configure the dielectric thin film of the stress relaxation layer as a c-axis-oriented epitaxial film with the twin crystal structure taught by Okunaga. Together, the formation of this lithium-deficient LiNb3O8 buffer interface and the c-axis-oriented epitaxial structure effectively allow for the successful transfer and growth of thin-film lithium niobate on heterogeneous wafers without fractures. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that combining these teachings from Iwatsuka and Okunaga yields robust, crack-free thin-film characteristics with a reasonable expectation of success, thereby achieving the claimed thickness and structural integrity.
Iwatsuka/Okunaga fails to teach a percentage of a film thickness of the stress relaxation layer to the film thickness of the dielectric thin film is 5% to 25%.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to set a percentage of a film thickness of the stress relaxation layer to the film thickness of the dielectric thin film is 5% to 25%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, Iwatsuka/Okunaga discloses the device of claim 1. Iwatsuka further discloses the single-crystal substrate is a sapphire single-crystal substrate the main surface of which is a c-plane (Par. [0039]).
Regarding claim 5, Iwatsuka/Okunaga discloses the device of claim 1. Iwatsuka further discloses an optical waveguide element comprising: the substrate with a dielectric thin film according to claim 1 (FIG. 2 an optical modulator that incorporates a waveguide is itself a type of optical waveguide element).
Regarding claim 6, Iwatsuka/Okunaga discloses the device of claim 1. Iwatsuka further discloses an optical modulation element comprising: the substrate with a dielectric thin film according to claim 1 (Optical modulator FIG. 2).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Iwatsuka et al.(US-20150138619-A1), hereafter Iwatsuka, in view of Okunaga et al. (US-20250260383-A1), here after Okunaga, and in further view of Sasaki et al. (WO-2018016428-A1), hereafter Sasaki.
The applied reference has common applicant and inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 4, Iwatsuka/Okunaga fails to discloses the twin crystal structure of the dielectric thin film has a ratio between a first diffraction intensity corresponding to the first crystal and a second diffraction intensity corresponding to the second crystal equal to or greater than 0.5 and equal to or less than 2.0 in pole measurement by an X-ray diffraction method.
Sasaki teaches the twin crystal structure of the dielectric thin film has a ratio between a first diffraction intensity corresponding to the first crystal and a second diffraction intensity corresponding to the second crystal equal to or greater than 0.5 and equal to or less than 2.0 in pole measurement by an X-ray diffraction method (Abstract).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Iwatsuka/Okunaga and Sasaki to optimize the crystal structure and dielectric performance of the film. Sasaki explicitly teaches utilizing X-ray diffraction pole measurements to achieve a specific twin crystal intensity ratio (0.5 to 2.0). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as a known method for improving film uniformity and stability. Applying Sasaki's targeted X-ray diffraction constraints to the dielectric thin film of Iwatsuka/Okunaga is considered a matter of routine optimization to yield a predictable balance of electrical properties. The combination solves the problem of uncontrolled crystalline orientation, as Sasaki provides the exact, recognized diffraction parameters to ensure desired domain distribution and enhanced performance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Sasaki et al. (JP2015014716A) see entire disclosure
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAJANAE N GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2188. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Fri. 5:30a-3:30p.
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.
/TAJANAE NICOLE GREEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights