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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the preamble to disclose the non-interferometric thin-film lithium niobate modulator (NI-TFLNM) nature of the device. While this portion of the amendment clarifies the prior objections by the Examiner, the recitation is not given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). The remaining portion of the independent claims do not mention the lithium niobate (LN) slab, nor the waveguides being ridge waveguide to form the NI-TFLNM. Examiner suggests amendment of the claims to include the slab made of LN and the ridge waveguides to create the modulator to define the thin-film nature described in Applicant’s Specification paragraphs 105-106.
Applicant further argues the non-interferometric nature of the output ports. While this clarifies structure, Examiner believes rearranging the ports to satisfy output requirements would be within the level of ordinary skill given the rest of the claimed structure involves what appears to be common Mach Zehnder modulator structure. Therefore, a clarified rejection follows below in view of US 2003/0002046 to Myers et al.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-4, 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,751,867 to Schaffner et al. in view of US 2003/0002046 to Myers et al.
Schaffner discloses in the abstract and figures 1 and 4, an apparatus comprising an electro-optic modulator (title) comprising:
An optical splitter (50) including:
An input port (26) configured to receive a continuous wave laser power (the prior art is configured to receive an input which can include a CW laser. A CW laser is not explicitly claimed);
A first output port (path 50); and
A second output port (path 52)
A first optical waveguide (42) including a first input port (left side of figure 1) coupled to the first output port of the splitter and a first output port (27);
A second optical waveguide (44) including a second input port (left side of figure 1) coupled to the second output port of the optical splitter and a “terminated port” (no language is claimed as to what defines a terminated port. Port 27 is an output port which results in the termination of the modulation structure);
A signal transmission line (“Vm” to 66; figure 1) extending substantially parallel with and situated laterally between the first and second waveguides (inner electrode 66 is between);
A first grounded transmission line (64) substantially parallel with the first waveguide, wherein the first waveguide is situated laterally between the signal and ground line (top two electrode portions in figure 1); and
A second grounded transmission line (68) substantially parallel with the second waveguide and the second waveguide situated laterally between the signal an second ground line (bottom two electrode portions in figure 1).
As to claims 2-4, the claim language only recites that the transmission lines are “configured to” perform a function. The disclosed electrodes are configured to receive any multitude of signals to include RF and DC voltages. No additional structure is claimed as to how these electrodes are configured to perform the claimed functions.
Claim 8 is similar to above independent claim 1 but lacks the splitter portion. Therefore, all the above structure of the prior art anticipates this claim.
Claim 15 is similar to above independent claim 1 but defines the splitter as being a Y-splitter and Y-combiner. This type of splitter is shown in figure 1.
However, Schaffner fails to disclose that the first output port of the first waveguide and terminated port are not coupled to form signal interference.
Myers discloses both interferometric and non-interferometric configurations depending on coupler configurations to maintain a desired junction output (paragraph 102).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the coupler outputs as taught by Myers in Schaffner to maintain a desired junction output.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-13, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US 2024/0129042 to Yoshino in view of Myers (cited above).
Yoshino discloses in the abstract and figures 5-6, an apparatus comprising an electro-optic modulator (abstract) comprising:
An optical splitter (unlabeled Y-splitter that splits signal from P1 in figure 6) including:
An input port (left unlabeled input line in figure 6) configured to receive a continuous wave laser power (the prior art is configured to receive an input which can include a CW laser. A CW laser is not explicitly claimed);
A first output port (right of Y-splitter that is unlabeled upper path in figure 6); and
A second output port (right of Y-splitter that is unlabeled lower path in figure 6)
A first optical waveguide (upper line in figure 6) including a first input port (left side of figure 6) coupled to the first output port of the splitter and a first output port (towards P2 in figure 6);
A second optical waveguide (lower unlabeled line) including a second input port (left side of figure 6) coupled to the second output port of the optical splitter and a “terminated port” (no language is claimed as to what defines a terminated port. Port path P2 is an output port which results in the termination of the modulation structure);
A signal transmission line (“RF Electrode” 102; figure 6) extending substantially parallel with and situated laterally between the first and second waveguides (inner electrode 102 is between);
A first grounded transmission line (103) substantially parallel with the first waveguide, wherein the first waveguide is situated laterally between the signal and ground line (top two electrode portions in figure 6 with waveguide between electrodes 102 and 103); and
A second grounded transmission line (104) substantially parallel with the second waveguide and the second waveguide situated laterally between the signal an second ground line (bottom two electrode portions in figure 6 with waveguide between electrodes 102 and 104).
As to claims 2-4, 9-11 and 16-17, the claim language only recites that the transmission lines are “configured to” perform a function. The disclosed electrodes are configured to receive any multitude of signals to include RF and DC voltages. No additional structure is claimed as to how these electrodes are configured to perform the claimed functions.
As to claims 5, 12 and 19, DC bias portions configured as claimed are shown as electrodes 105-107 on the right side of figure 6 and input supplied as “DC BIAS”.
As to claims 6, 13 and 18, no structure is claimed as to how the DC bias voltage is configured to set a propagation constant nor what the propagation constant is. The prior art is configured to at least be able to set a propagation constant even if it is one that is not optimal.
Claim 8 is similar to above independent claim 1 but lacks the splitter portion. Therefore, all the above structure of the prior art anticipates this claim.
Claim 15 is similar to above independent claim 1 but defines the splitter as being a Y-splitter and Y-combiner. This type of splitter is shown in figure 6.
However, Yoshino fails to disclose that the first output port of the first waveguide and terminated port are not coupled to form signal interference.
Myers discloses both interferometric and non-interferometric configurations depending on coupler configurations to maintain a desired junction output (paragraph 102).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the coupler outputs as taught by Myers in Yoshino to maintain a desired junction output.
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino in view of Myers (YIM) and further in view of US 6,621,617 to Poggiolini.
YIM discloses a singular MZ modulator portion but fails to explicitly disclose additional components typically used to modulate multiple optical signals. Such is common in the art.
Poggiolini discloses such additional components in the WDM MUX on the transmitter side and a WDM DEMUX on the receiver side (these would provide the Nx1 and 1xN functionality) as well as a CW laser source (110) and optical amplifiers (204).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino in view of Myers (YIM) and in further view of US 5,751,867 to Schaffner et al.
YIM discloses the claimed invention except for a waveguide arm that is closer to the electrode with respect to center. It is noted that such spacing is common in the art to alter an electric field for the MZ modulation function.
Schaffner discloses such a common placement and spacing to optimize an electric field (column 6, lines 28-33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to space the waveguide from an electrode as taught by Schaffner in YIM to optimize an electric field for modulation.
Conclusion
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.
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 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights