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 prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on July 8, 2024 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Thirty-four (34) sheets of drawings were filed on July 8, 2024.
Figures 34 and 35 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). As described in the specification, Figures 34 and 35 illustrate a conventional, i.e. prior art, optical modulator.
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
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 1-10 are 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.
Regarding claim 1; the claim recites the limitation “the second waveguide has an electro-optical effect higher than an electro-optical effect of the first waveguide” in lines 6-8 of the claim.
It is unclear if the higher electro-optic effect is achieved by applying a higher voltage or a higher temperature to an electro-optic material of the second waveguide than to the first waveguide, if the material itself has a greater effect when a same voltage or same temperature is applied to the materials of the first and second waveguides, and/or if the first waveguide simply has no effect. Therefore, this limitations is unclear and indefinite.
The examiner suggests clearly defining the structure of the invention that provides the claimed higher electro-optical effect rather than relying on the broad limitation that may encompass embodiments not described in the specification. Clarification is required.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the limitation “a return structure” in lines 8 and 12. The examiner notes that this term is not a term of art that designates a particular structure and therefore the term is considered indefinite. Clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider any output to be a return structure.
Regarding claims 2-8; dependent claims inherently contain the deficiencies of any base and/or intervening claims from which they depend.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites (emphasis added) “[t]he optical device according to claim 1, wherein in a case where an electro-optical crystal layer of the second chip is an X-cut thin film LN chip, the second waveguide is an optical waveguide where light propagates in a Y-axis direction along a crystal axis of the X-cut thin film LN chip.” The phrase “in a case” renders the claim indefinite because it’s unclear if that is required to be the case, and therefore unclear if the limitations following “in a case” are required. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will presume the limitations are not required, since this is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Regarding claim 9; the claim recites “the second waveguide has an electro-optical effect higher than an electro-optical effect of the first waveguide” in lines 10-11 and recites “a return structure” in lines 12 and 16, and therefore suffers from the same deficiencies noted above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10; the claim recites “the second waveguide has an electro-optical effect higher than an electro-optical effect of the first waveguide” in lines 16-17 and recites “a return structure” in lines 18 and 22, and therefore suffers from the same deficiencies noted above with respect to claim 1.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (US 2024/0295762 A1) in view of Kono (US 2019/0094649 A1)
Regarding claims 1 and 8; Ji et al. discloses an optical device (see Figures 1A, 1B, 2 and 3) comprising:
a first chip (20) including a first waveguide (200) and a first electrode (2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f); and
a second chip (10) mounted on the first chip (20; see Figures 2 and 3) and including a second waveguide (17) and a second electrode (1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f),
wherein
the second waveguide (17) has an electro-optical effect higher than an electro-optical effect (the second waveguide is formed on a thin-film lithium niobate chip in a lithium niobate waveguide layer 11 and the first waveguide is formed on a silicon chip in a silicon waveguide layer 27, and therefore it is presumed that the electro-optical effect of the second waveguide 17 is higher than the electro-optical effect of the first waveguide 200; see paragraphs 33 and 34) of the first waveguide (200),
has a return structure that places an end of the second waveguide (17) at an end face of the second chip (10), and
is optically coupled to the first waveguide (200), and
the second electrode has a return structure (see Figure 1A; the return structure is illustrated), and
the second electrode (1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f) and the first electrode (2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f) are electrically connected to each other in an area where the end of the second electrode has been placed.
Ji et al. does not disclose that the second waveguide (17) is optically coupled to the first waveguide (200) at the end face of the second chip. The first and second waveguides (200 and 17, respectively) of Ji et al. are coupled via a directional coupler (108) and grating (109, 209) couplers at a location offset from the end of the second chip.
Ji et al. also does not disclose that the second electrode has a return structure that palaces an end of the second electrode at the end face. The second electrodes are located on a surface of the chip removed from the end face as illustrated in Figure 1A.
The second waveguide (17) of Ji et al. forms a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (see Figure 1A).
Kono et al. teaches that a Mach-Zehnder interferometer having an alternative waveguide and electrode arrangement, wherein the waveguide (12W1G, 15, 17, 12W2G) has outputs at a first end (12a) of the chip, and an electrode (21, 23) has a return structure that places an end of the second electrode at the end face 12a; see Figure 9), thereby providing a folded configuration that is more compact and allows for a reduced signal skew in a differential signal line that drives the folded arm waveguides (see paragraph 89 and Figure 9).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optically coupled the optical waveguides Mach-Zehnder interferometer of Kono et al. to first waveguides and electrodes on another (first) chip for the purpose of transmitting and receiving both optical and electrical signals from waveguide and/or electrodes on the another (first) chip as suggested by the teachings of Ji et al. for the purpose of accommodating this known, alternative Mach-Zehnder configuration, since one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2; Kono et al. further teaches that the second waveguide having the return structure has a second waveguide (12W1G, 15, 17) on a forward path and a second waveguide (15, 17, 12W2G) that is on a backward path and that is connected to the second waveguide on the forward path, the second electrode (21) having the return structure has a second electrode (21, 23) on a forward path and a second electrode (21, 23) on a backward path, the second electrode on the backward path has been arranged to apply an electric field from the second electrode on the backward path to the second waveguide on the backward path, and the second electrode on the forward path has been arranged to not apply an electric field from the second electrode on the forward path to the second waveguide on the forward path (see Figure 9).
Regarding claim 3; Ji et al. further teaches that the first chip (20) has been bonded to the second chip (10) with adhesive (solder bumps 13). Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide an adhesive (i.e. solder) to bond a first chip to the end face of the second chip of Kono et al., since one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 4; Ji et al. further teaches that the first chip (20) is bonded to the second chip (10) with another adhesive (filler 32 to fix the modules; see paragraph 38) that provide a refractive index matching effect to minimize optical coupling loss between the waveguides, which is understood to be a resin (see paragraph 3) that is softer than solder. Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to further provide a device having the Mach-Zehnder arrangement disclosed by Kono et al., wherein the first chip has been bonded to another end face of the second chip with another adhesive softer than the adhesive, the another end face being other than the end face, since one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 5; Kono et al. further teaches that the second waveguide having the return structure has a second waveguide (12W1G, 15, 17) on a forward path and a second waveguide (12W2G, 15, 17) that is on a backward path and that is connected to the second waveguide on the forward path, the second electrode (21, 23) having the return structure has a second electrode (21, 23) on a forward path and a second electrode (21, 23) on a backward path, the second waveguide on the forward path includes two waveguides (15, 17) on the forward path, the second waveguide on the backward path includes two waveguides (15, 17) on the backward path, the two waveguides being connected to the two waveguides on the forward path (see Figure 9), and one of the two waveguides on the forward path has a waveguide length that has been made the same as a waveguide length of the other one of the two waveguides on the forward path (see Figure 9).
Regarding claim 9; an optical source is inherently required to emit the light modulated by the Mach-Zehnder modulators taught by both Ji et la. and Kono et la., and the Mach-Zehnder modulators module the light from the light source according to an electric signal, wherein light is output from the device, inherently forming a transmitter.
Regarding claim 10; an optical source is inherently required to emit the light modulated by the Mach-Zehnder modulators taught by both Ji et la. and Kono et la., and the Mach-Zehnder modulators module the light from the light source according to an electric signal, wherein light is output from the device, inherently forming a transmitter. Ji further teaches that the light is monitored by a photodiode (212) at the output of the Mach-Zehnder modulator, wherein a photodiode is a receiver that converts received light into an electrical signal, and the light is inherently the light that is generated by the light source. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to further provide a processor to execute signal processing of the electrical signal output by the photodiode for the purpose of monitoring the output.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, which is the most relevant prior art known, does not disclose or render obvious the optical device defined by claim 6, wherein:
the first waveguide (200) has a first waveguide near an input and a first waveguide near an output,
the first waveguide near the input includes two waveguides near the input,
the first waveguide near the output includes two waveguides near the output,
the second waveguide having the return structure has a second waveguide on a forward path and a second waveguide that is on a backward path and that is connected to the second waveguide on the forward path,
the second waveguide on the forward path includes two waveguides on the forward path,
the second waveguide on the backward path includes two waveguides on the backward path, the two waveguides being connected to the two waveguides on the forward path, and
one of the two waveguides near the input has a waveguide length that is the same as a waveguide length of the other one of the two waveguides near the input, or
one of the two waveguides near the output has a waveguide length that is the same as a waveguide length of the other one of the two waveguides near the output;
in combination with all of the limitations of base claim 1.
The prior art of record, which is the most relevant prior art known, does not disclose or render obvious the optical device defined by claim 7, wherein:
the first waveguide has two first waveguides near an input and two first waveguides near an output,
the second waveguide has two second waveguides on a forward path and two second waveguides on a backward path, and the optical device includes:
a splitter that splits light input to the splitter;
the two first waveguides that are connected to the splitter and that are near an input;
the two second waveguides on the forward path and connected to the two first waveguides near the input;
the two second waveguides on the backward path and connected to the two second waveguides on the forward path;
second electrodes that apply a second electric signal to the two second waveguides on the backward path;
the two first waveguides near the output and connected to the two second waveguides on the backward path;
first electrodes that apply a first electric signal to the two first waveguides near the output; and
a multiplexer that is connected to the two first waveguides near the output, multiplexes light modulated through the two first waveguides near the output according to the first electric signal together, and outputs the light that has been multiplexed, to an output unit,
wherein the first chip is a silicon photonics chip and has the splitter, the two first waveguides near the input, the two first waveguides near the output, the first electrodes, and the multiplexer, and
the second chip is a thin film LN chip and has the two second waveguides on the forward path, the two second waveguides on the backward path, and the second electrodes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE R CONNELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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.
/MICHELLE R CONNELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights