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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS's) submitted comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statements; please see attached forms PTO-1449.
Drawings
The drawings submitted have been reviewed and determined to facilitate understanding of the invention. The drawings are accepted as submitted.
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.
Claims 11-14 are 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.
Claim 10 describes:
“two optical modulator units parallel or substantially parallel to each other, and each including the optical waveguide and the control electrodes.”
It is not clear whether the claim language is intended to describe each of the optical modulator units including separate waveguides and control electrodes as described in Claim 1 or each of the optical modulator units including the same optical waveguide and control electrode as each other.
Because it is not clear what structure is defined by the language of Claim 10, it is indefinite.
Claims 11-14 depend from Claim 10 and fail to remedy the indefiniteness.
For examination purposes, Claim 10 shall be considered to describe a structure where each of the optical modulator units including separate waveguides and control electrodes as described in Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3, 7-8, 10-11, 13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2014/0270617 A1 to Muller et al. (“US1”), cited in Applicant’s IDS received 20 May 2025.
Regarding Claim 1, US1 describes an optical modulator (see Figs 2, 3, 8), comprising:
an optical waveguide (202, 802a, 802b) including a material with an electrooptic effect (see [0042]); and
control electrodes to control light that passes through the optical waveguide (see [0049]-[0050], [0057]); wherein
the control electrodes include:
a first electrode (203, 803a, 803b);
two second electrodes (204, 204’, 804a, 804a’, 804b, 804b’) to receive a voltage with an identical phase to a voltage applied to the first electrode (see [0049]); and
a third electrode (205, 805a, 805b) to generate a potential difference from a group of the first electrode and the second electrodes (see [0050], [0057]); wherein
in a cross-sectional view perpendicular to a direction in which the optical waveguide extends, the first electrode is on a first side of the optical waveguide in a thickness direction (see Figs 2, 3, 8);
in the cross-sectional view, a first one of the two second electrodes is spaced apart from the first electrode on a first side of the first electrode in a width direction of the optical waveguide, and a second one of the two second electrodes is spaced apart from the first electrode on a second side of the first electrode in the width direction of the optical waveguide (see Figs 2, 3, 8); and
in the cross-sectional view, the third electrode is on a second side of the optical waveguide in the thickness direction (see Figs 2, 3, 8).
Regarding Claim 2, US1 describes, in a cross-sectional view perpendicular to the direction in which the optical waveguide extends, a middle position of the first electrode in a width direction is at a middle portion of the optical waveguide in a width direction, and a middle position of the third electrode in a width direction is at the middle portion of the optical waveguide in the width direction (see Figs 2, 3, 8).
Regarding Claim 3, US1 describes, in a cross-sectional view perpendicular to the direction in which the optical waveguide extends, the two second electrodes are arranged in the width direction of the optical waveguide symmetrically with respect to the first electrode (see Figs 2, 3, 8).
Regarding Claim 7, US1 describes the material of the optical waveguide as LiNbO3 (see [0042]).
Regarding Claim 8, US1 describes a substrate (201 or 220) on which the optical waveguide is provided.
Regarding Claim 10, US1 describes two optical modulator units parallel or substantially parallel to each other, and each including the optical waveguide and the control electrodes (see Fig. 8 and [0057]).
Regarding Claim 11, US1 describes:
each of the optical modulator units further includes a substrate on which the optical waveguide is provided (220, as integrated in the embodiment of Fig. 8 (see [0057]); and
the substrate in a first one of the two optical modulator units is parallel or substantially parallel with the substrate in a second one of the two optical modulator units (see Fig 8).
Regarding Claim 13, US1 describes:
the substrate in the first one of the two optical modulator units is integrated with the substrate in the second one of the two optical modulator units (see Fig 8); and
the first electrode and the second electrode in the first optical modulator unit receive a voltage with an opposite phase to a voltage applied to the first electrode and the second electrode in the second optical modulator unit (see [0057]).
Regarding Claim 17, US1 describes the optical modulator as a Mach-Zehnder optical modulator (see [0057]).
Regarding Claim 18, US1 describes the first electrode and the second electrodes as signal electrodes (see [0042], [0049], [0057]).
Regarding Claim 19, US1 describes the third electrode as a ground electrode (see [0050], [0057]).
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.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US1.
US1 describes an optical modulator as discussed above with respect to Claim 1. US1 does not describe the optical waveguide comprising the claimed materials.
Such materials are well-known in the art for forming waveguides with electro-optical properties.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the waveguides of the modulator of US1 from the claimed materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The motivation for doing so would have been to take advantage of particular optical, electrical, and/or structural properties of the given materials.
Claims 4-6, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US1 as applied to Claims 1 and/or 11 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication US 2010/0046880 A1 to Oikawa et al. (“US2”), cited in Applicant’s IDS received 30 July 2025.
Regarding Claim 4, US1 describes an optical modulator as discussed above with respect to Claim 1. US1 further describes:
in the width direction of the optical waveguide, the first one of the second electrodes is spaced apart from an end portion of the optical waveguide on a first side, and the second one of the second electrodes is spaced apart from an end portion of the optical waveguide on a second side (see Figs 2, 3, 8).
US1 does not describe the optical modulator further comprises a low-permittivity layer with a lower permittivity than the optical waveguide.
US2 describes an optical modulator (see Figs 10, 11, 18), comprising:
an optical waveguide (2) including a material with an electrooptic effect (see [0056]-[0057], [0067]); and
control electrodes to control light that passes through the optical waveguide (see [0056]-[0057]); wherein
the control electrodes include:
a first electrode (4);
two second electrodes (5); and
a third electrode (54); wherein
in a cross-sectional view perpendicular to a direction in which the optical waveguide extends, the first electrode is on a first side of the optical waveguide in a thickness direction (see Figs 10, 11, 18);
in the cross-sectional view, a first one of the two second electrodes is spaced apart from the first electrode on a first side of the first electrode in a width direction of the optical waveguide, and a second one of the two second electrodes is spaced apart from the first electrode on a second side of the first electrode in the width direction of the optical waveguide (see Figs 10, 11, 18); and
in the cross-sectional view, the third electrode is on a second side of the optical waveguide in the thickness direction (see Figs 10, 11, 18); wherein
in the width direction of the optical waveguide, the first one of the second electrodes is spaced apart from an end portion of the optical waveguide on a first side, and the second one of the second electrodes is spaced apart from an end portion of the optical waveguide on a second side (see Figs 10, 11, 18);
the optical modulator further comprises a low-permittivity layer (8) with a lower permittivity than the optical waveguide; and
the low-permittivity layer at least partially covers surfaces of the second electrodes to be interposed between the second electrodes and the third electrode (see Figs 10, 11, 18).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the low-permittivity layer and layout of US2 in the modulator of US1. The motivation for doing so would have been to adjust the refractive index or the impedance of a microwave in the control electrode or allow for greater freedom in wiring design (see US2 at [0080], [0083]).
Regarding Claim 5, US2 describes the low-permittivity layer at least partially covering a surface of the first electrode to be interposed between the first electrode and the third electrode (see Figs 10, 11, 18).
Regarding Claim 6, US1 describes an optical modulator as discussed above with respect to Claim 1. US1 does not describe the optical modulator further comprising an auxiliary low-permittivity layer with a lower permittivity than the optical waveguide.
US2 describes an optical modulator (see Figs 4-11), comprising:
an optical waveguide (2) including a material with an electrooptic effect (see [0056]-[0057], [0067]); and
control electrodes to control light that passes through the optical waveguide (see [0056]-[0057]); wherein
the control electrodes include:
a first electrode (4);
two second electrodes (5); and
a third electrode (54); wherein
in a cross-sectional view perpendicular to a direction in which the optical waveguide extends, the first electrode is on a first side of the optical waveguide in a thickness direction (see Figs 4-11);
in the cross-sectional view, a first one of the two second electrodes is spaced apart from the first electrode on a first side of the first electrode in a width direction of the optical waveguide, and a second one of the two second electrodes is spaced apart from the first electrode on a second side of the first electrode in the width direction of the optical waveguide (see Figs 4-11); and
in the cross-sectional view, the third electrode is on a second side of the optical waveguide in the thickness direction (see Figs 4-11);
an auxiliary low-permittivity layer (31) with a lower permittivity than the optical waveguide;
the auxiliary low-permittivity layer at least partially covers a surface of the third electrode to be interposed between the second electrodes and the third electrode (see Figs 4-11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the low-permittivity layer and layout of US2 in the modulator of US1. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce an electrode loss and to increase an optical confinement factor. (see US2 at [0061]).
Regarding Claims 9 and 12, US1 describes an optical modulator as discussed above with respect to Claims 1 and/or 11. US1 further describes the substrate (201) including an identical material to that of the optical waveguide (see [0042], [0047]). US1 does not describe the optical waveguide as a ridge waveguide.
US2 describes an optical modulator (see Figs 7-11), comprising:
an optical waveguide (2) including a material with an electrooptic effect (see [0056]-[0057], [0067]); and
control electrodes to control light that passes through the optical waveguide (see [0056]-[0057]); wherein
the control electrodes include:
a first electrode (4);
two second electrodes (5); and
a third electrode (54); wherein
in a cross-sectional view perpendicular to a direction in which the optical waveguide extends, the first electrode is on a first side of the optical waveguide in a thickness direction (see Figs 7-11);
in the cross-sectional view, a first one of the two second electrodes is spaced apart from the first electrode on a first side of the first electrode in a width direction of the optical waveguide, and a second one of the two second electrodes is spaced apart from the first electrode on a second side of the first electrode in the width direction of the optical waveguide (see Figs 7-11); and
in the cross-sectional view, the third electrode is on a second side of the optical waveguide in the thickness direction (see Figs 7-11); wherein
the substrate includes an identical material to that of the optical waveguide (see [0056]-[0058]); and
the optical waveguide is a ridge waveguide (see Figs 7-11, [0074]-[0075]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the waveguide of US1 with the ridge waveguide shape of US2. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase an optical containment factor and concentrate an electric field generated in the waveguide (see US2 at [0074]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 describes:
one of the two second electrodes in the first one of the two optical modulator units integrated with one of the two second electrodes in the second one of the two optical modulator units; and
the first electrode and the second electrode in the first one of the two optical modulator units receive a voltage with an identical phase to a voltage applied to the first electrode and the second electrode in the second one of the two optical modulator units.
Claim 20 describes the third electrode as an inverse signal electrode to receive a voltage with an opposite phase to the voltage applied to the first electrode and the second electrodes.
These limitations represent subject matter not described or reasonably suggested, in conjunction with the further limitations of the present claims, by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art cited in the attached form PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art describes optical modulators with waveguides including a material with an electrooptic effect and control electrodes to control light that passes through the optical waveguide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights