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) submitted on 7/10/24 and 5/20/25 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 12-13, 15, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (US 2023/0333418 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Zhu et al. discloses an optical modulator (Fig. 4B; [0012]) comprising:
an optical waveguide 503 including a material having an electro-optic effect (Figs. 4A-4B and 5; [0053]);
a first electrode 504 including a semiconductor material and spaced by a gap from the optical waveguide 503 (Figs. 4A-4B and 5; [0055]);
a second electrode 506 positioned to provide a potential difference with the first electrode and apply an electric field to the optical waveguide 503 (Figs. 4A-4B and 5; [0054]-[0055]); and
a first low dielectric constant layer (e.g., SiO2 first cladding layer) that has a refractive index smaller than a refractive index of the optical waveguide 503 and is provided in the gap between the first electrode 504 and the optical waveguide 503 (Figs. 4A-4B and 5; [0056]).
Re. Claim 2, Zhu et al. discloses a second low dielectric constant layer (e.g., SiO2 second cladding layer) having a refractive index smaller than the refractive index of the optical waveguide 503; wherein the second electrode 506 is spaced by a gap from the optical waveguide 503; and the second low dielectric constant layer is provided in the gap between the second electrode 506 and the optical waveguide 503 (Figs. 4B and 5; [0056]).
Re. Claim 3, Zhu et al. discloses the first low dielectric constant layer surrounds the optical waveguide when viewed in a cross section perpendicular to an extending direction of the optical waveguide, and is provided between the optical waveguide and each of the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 4B; [0041]).
Re. Claim 4, Zhu et al. discloses the first electrode is stacked on the optical waveguide; and the second electrode is stacked on the optical waveguide on an opposite side of the first electrode (Fig. 4B; [0041]).
Re. Claim 6, Zhu et al. discloses the optical waveguide includes a substrate and a ridge protruding from a surface of the substrate; the first low dielectric constant layer is stacked on the substrate and the ridge; and the first electrode and the second electrode are stacked on the first low dielectric constant layer and are parallel or substantially parallel with a gap between each other (Fig. 4A).
Re. Claim 9, Zhu et al. discloses the semiconductor material is a silicon semiconductor material in which silicon is doped with an impurity ([0055]).
Re. Claim 12, Zhu et al. discloses a main component of the first low dielectric constant layer is SiO2 ([0056]).
Re. Claim 13, Zhu et al. discloses the first electrode has a refractive index smaller than 3 e.g., n=1.93; [0079]).
Re. Claim 15, Zhu et al. discloses the material of the optical waveguide is lithium niobate, lithium tantalate, lead lanthanum zirconate titanate, potassium tantalate niobate, barium titanate or an electro-optic polymer ([0053]).
Re. Claim 18, Zhu et al. discloses the refractive index of the optical waveguide is 2.3, 2.8, 2.5, 2.1, or 2.6 ([0083]).
Re. Claim 19, Zhu et al. discloses the refractive index of the first low dielectric constant layer is about 1.5 or more and about 6.0 or less ([0083]).
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 5, 7-8, 10-11, 14, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 2023/0333418 A1).
Re. Claims 5 and 7, Zhu et al. discloses the optical modulator as discussed above, but fails to explicitly disclose arrangements wherein either (a) a ratio of a thickness of the first electrode to a thickness of the first low dielectric constant layer is larger than or equal to about 20.0 and smaller than or equal to about 44.0, or (b) a ratio of a thickness of the first electrode to a thickness of the first low dielectric constant layer at the position of the ridge is larger than or equal to about 0.1 and smaller than or equal to about 4.0.
The claimed arrangements would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Re. Claim 8, Zhu et al. discloses the optical modulator as discussed above, but fails to explicitly disclose a size of the gap between the first electrode and the optical waveguide is larger than or equal to about 0.750 µm and smaller than or equal to about 1.675 µm.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Re. Claim 10, Zhu et al. discloses the optical modulator as discussed above, but fails to explicitly disclose a concentration of the impurity in the first electrode is higher than or equal to about 1.0×1017 cm-3 and lower than or equal to about 1.0×1022 cm-3.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Re. Claim 11, Zhu et al. discloses the optical modulator as discussed above, but fails to disclose the first electrode is a silicon single crystal substrate.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, 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.
Re. Claim 14, Zhu et al. discloses the optical modulator as discussed above, but fails to disclose a surface layer of the first electrode on the optical waveguide side is doped with an impurity at a higher concentration than other portions of the first electrode.
Electrode layers having non-uniform doping profiles are known in the art, and one of ordinary skill would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 16, Zhu et al. discloses the optical modulator as discussed above, but fails to disclose the semiconductor material is germanium or gallium arsenide.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, 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.
Re. Claim 17, Zhu et al. discloses the optical modulator as discussed above, but fails to disclose the impurity is a p-type impurity or an n-type impurity.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, 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.
Re. Claim 20, Zhu et al. discloses the optical modulator as discussed above, but fails to disclose the material of the first low dielectric constant layer is Al2O3, LaAlO3, LaYO3, ZnO, HfO2, MgO, Y2O3, benzocyclobutene, or polyimide.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-7892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 7/17/26
Prosecution Insights