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 .
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.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claim is indicated as depending upon the “optical modulator of claim 12.” However, claim 12 is set forth as a method claim, and as such, .there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 14. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets claim 14 as if it depends on the optical modulator set forth in claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0373363 (“ZHOU”).
Regarding claim 13, ZHOU teaches an optical modulator (FIG. 4D), comprising: a waveguide region (450) containing a P-N junction diode (par. [0062]) with a plurality of vertically alternating negatively doped (444, 446) and positively doped interlocking fingers (434, 436); a negatively-doped pickup channel (442) electrically connecting a first ohmic contact (440) to the negatively doped fingers; and a positively-doped pickup channel (432) electrically connecting a second ohmic contact (430) to the positively doped fingers.
Regarding claim 17, ZHOU teaches an optical waveguide (pars. [0062], [0065], such an optical waveguide would intrinsically have an input and an output coupled to the waveguide region, as otherwise, the optical waveguide would not function with its waveguiding properties.
Regarding claim 18, ZHOU teaches that the waveguide region is formed in a base layer (460), and the optical modulator further comprises a dielectric layer (420) below the base layer and a substrate (410) below the dielectric layer.
Regarding claim 19, ZHOU teaches a method of using an optical modulator (FIG. 4D), comprising: sending an input optical signal through a waveguide region (450) of the optical modulator, wherein the waveguide region contains a P-N junction diode (par. [0062]) with a plurality of vertically alternating negatively doped (444, 446) and positively doped interlocking fingers (434, 436) ; and applying a bias voltage to the P-N junction diode (par. [0403]) to change an amplitude of an output optical signal (pars. [0005], [0006]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU.
ZHOU teaches the limitations of the base claim 13. The additional limitations appear to involve mere optimization. It has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to optimize the modulator of ZHOU as set forth in the instant claim.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US 2021/0072460 (“ZHANG”) in view of US 2018/0210242 (“BAEHR-JONES”) and in view of ZHOU.
Regarding claim 1, ZHANG teaches a method for making an optical modulator (FIG. 5), comprising: forming a hard mask layer (506) over an upper surface of a base layer (101); forming a first trench and a second trench (508) in the base layer to define a waveguide region (110) between the first trench and the second trench; implanting a first dopant type in the first trench and in a first side of the waveguide region and implanting a second dopant type in the second trench and in a second side of the waveguide region (par. [0054]); increasing a second dopant type concentration in the second trench to form a second pickup channel and increasing a first dopant type concentration in the first trench to form a first pickup channel (pars. [0032], [0037]); filling the first trench and the second trench with a dielectric material (pars. [0062]-[0064]); and removing the hard mask layer (par. [0056]).
ZHANG does not teach annealing the waveguide region to form a P-N junction diode. BAEHR-JONES teaches annealing a waveguide region to form a P-N junction diode
(par. [0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to anneal the waveguide region of ZHANG to form the P-N junction diode, as taught by BAEHR-JONES. The motivation would have been to improve dopant activation.
ZHANG also does not teach forming a plurality of vertically alternating negatively doped regions and positively doped regions in the waveguide region, with the P-N junction having a plurality of negatively doped and positively doped interlocking fingers; forming a first ohmic contact to the first pickup channel on the upper surface of the base layer; and forming a second ohmic contact to the second pickup channel on the upper surface of the base layer to obtain the optical modulator. ZHOU teaches forming a plurality of vertically alternating negatively doped regions (444, 46) and positively doped regions (434, 436) in a waveguide region (450), with a
P-N junction (par. [0062]) having a plurality of negatively doped and positively doped interlocking fingers (FIG. 4D); forming a first ohmic contact (430) to a first pickup channel (432) on the upper surface of a base layer (460); and forming a second ohmic contact (440) to a second pickup channel (442) on the upper surface of the base layer to obtain the optical modulator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to form the interlocking fingers, ohmic contact layers, and pickup channels of ZHOU in the method of ZHANG. The motivation would have been to reduce insertion losses.
Regarding claims 2-8, ZHANG in view of BAEHR-JONES and in view of ZHOU renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 1. The additional limitations appear to involve mere optimization. It has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to optimize the method of ZHANG as set forth in the instant claims.
Regarding claim 9, ZHOU teaches that the plurality of vertically alternating negatively doped regions and positively doped regions in the waveguide region comprises: a first region (434) with the first dopant type; a second region (444) with the second dopant type, wherein the second region is above the first region; a third region (436) with the first dopant type, wherein the third region is above the second region; and a fourth region (446) with the second dopant type, wherein the fourth region is above the third region (FIG. 4D).
Regarding claim 10, ZHANG teaches that the optical modulator is a micro-ring modulator or a Mach-Zehnder modulator (par. [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, while ZHOU teaches that the first dopant type is an p-type dopant, and the second dopant type is a n-type dopant, the claimed subject matter appears to merely be an obvious variant thereof, with the inventive concept pertaining to the alternating nature of the p-type and n-type dopant regions.
Regarding claim 12, ZHOU teaches that the optical modulator further comprises a dielectric layer (420) below a base layer (460) and a substrate (410) below the dielectric layer.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU in view of BAEHR-JONES.
ZHOU teaches the limitations of the Examiner-interpreted base claim 13. ZHOU does not teach that the optical modulator has the shape of a circle or a racetrack when viewed from above. BAEHR-JONES teaches an optical modulator having the shape of a circle or a racetrack when viewed from above (FIG. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the modulator of ZHOU so as to have a circular shape, as taught by BAEHR-JONES. The motivation would have been to minimize polarization-dependent losses.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU in view of ZHANG.
ZHOU teaches the limitations of the base claim 13. ZHOU does not teach a first dielectric trench between the waveguide region and the first ohmic contact and a second dielectric trench between the waveguide region and the second ohmic contact. ZHANG teaches a first dielectric trench between a waveguide region and a first ohmic contact and a second dielectric trench between the waveguide region and a second ohmic contact (pars. [0047], [0057], [0063). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the modulator of ZHOU with the dielectric trenches of ZHANG. The motivation would have been to improve optical isolation.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU in view of US 8,027,587 (“WATTS”).
ZHOU teaches the limitations of the base claim 19. ZHOU does not teach that the input optical signal includes a plurality of wavelengths, and an amplitude of only a single wavelength is changed by the optical modulator. WATTS teaches an input optical signal including a plurality of wavelengths, with an amplitude of only a single wavelength being changed by an optical modulator (col. 10, line 66 – col. 11, line 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method of ZHOU such that only a single wavelength of a plurality of wavelengths is changed by the optical modulator, as taught by WATTS. The motivation would have been to provide elective optical modulation, as desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. 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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 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.
/JERRY M BLEVINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights