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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 23rd, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2007/0147723) in view of Li (CN 114035350 A, in view of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada discloses an acousto-optical device (Figs. 1-5, element 11) comprising:
a piezoelectric layer (2, [0054], “piezoelectric substrate 2”) comprising a top surface and a bottom surface (2a is a top surface and an opposite surface is a bottom surface);
a waveguide (3) on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer ([0054], “optical waveguide 3 is formed in a widthwise-direction central portion of an upper surface 2a of the piezoelectric substrate”).
Yamada does not specifically disclose a first interdigital transducer disposed on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer, wherein the first interdigital transducer is positioned on a first side of the waveguide; and a second interdigital transducer disposed on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer, wherein the second interdigital transducer is positioned on a second side of the waveguide opposite the first side.
However Li, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an acousto-optical device, teaches a first interdigital transducer (Fig. 1, element 3a) disposed on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer (2, [0024], “2-focusing acoustic wave plate”, [0009], “acoustic wave plate is symmetrical about the strip-shaped transmission waveguide backbone and both are made of piezoelectric material”), wherein the first interdigital transducer is positioned on a first side of the waveguide (as shown in Fig. 1, 3a is located on a first side of the waveguide 1); and a second interdigital transducer (3b) disposed on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer (2), wherein the second interdigital transducer is positioned on a second side of the waveguide opposite the first side (as shown in Fig. 1, 3b is located on a second side of waveguide 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the acousto-optical device of Yamada with the first interdigital transducer disposed on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer, wherein the first interdigital transducer is positioned on a first side of the waveguide; and a second interdigital transducer disposed on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer, wherein the second interdigital transducer is positioned on a second side of the waveguide opposite the first side as taught by Li, for the purpose of improving efficiency and avoiding absorption loss of optical modes ([0004]).
Claim 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2007/0147723) in view of Li (CN 114035350 A, in view of the machine translation), further in view of Yoshioka (US 2023/0084321).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yamada teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the piezoelectric layer comprises epitaxial aluminum scandium nitride (AlScN).
However Yoshioka, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an acousto-optical device, teaches wherein the piezoelectric layer (Fig. 1A and 11A, AlScN layer) comprises epitaxial aluminum scandium nitride (AlScN) (as shown in Figs. 1A and 11A, the piezoelectric layer is AlScN).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the acousto-optical device of Yamada in view of Li with the wherein the piezoelectric layer comprises epitaxial aluminum scandium nitride (AlScN) as taught by Yoshioka, for the purpose of lowering cost and improving efficiency ([0060]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yamada teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the waveguide comprises silicon positioned on the piezoelectric layer by depositing the piezoelectric layer on a silicon handle wafer and forming the waveguide from the silicon handle wafer.
However Yoshioka, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an acousto-optical device, teaches wherein the waveguide comprises silicon (Fig. 2A, Si layer) positioned on the piezoelectric layer (AlScN layer in Fig. 2) by depositing the piezoelectric layer on a silicon handle wafer and forming the waveguide from the silicon handle wafer ([0065], “The Al.sub.1-xSc.sub.xN films were deposited in a pulsed DC physical vapor deposition system”, as shown in Fig. 11B, the Si layer is formed into the waveguide).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the acousto-optical device of Yamada in view of Li with the wherein the waveguide comprises silicon positioned on the piezoelectric layer by depositing the piezoelectric layer on a silicon handle wafer and forming the waveguide from the silicon handle wafer as taught by Yoshioka, for the purpose of lowering cost and improving efficiency ([0060]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yamada teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the waveguide comprises silicon nitride (SiN).
However Yoshioka, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an acousto-optical device, teaches wherein the waveguide (Fig. 1A and 11A, SiN layer) comprises silicon nitride (as shown in Figs. 1A and 11A, the waveguide layer is SiN).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the acousto-optical device of Yamada in view of Li with the wherein the waveguide comprises silicon nitride (SiN) as taught by Yoshioka, for the purpose of lowering cost and improving efficiency ([0060]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2007/0147723) in view of Li (CN 114035350 A, in view of the machine translation), further in view of Hara (US 2018/0307116).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yamada teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose further comprising: a first dummy finger formed between the first interdigital transducer and the waveguide; and a second dummy finger formed between the second interdigital transducer and the waveguide.
However Hara, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an acousto-optical device, teaches further comprising: a first dummy finger (Fig. 2, E5) formed between the first interdigital transducer (C2) and the waveguide (B1); and a second dummy finger (E6) formed between the second interdigital transducer (C4) and the waveguide (B1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the acousto-optical device of Yamada in view of Li with the further comprising: a first dummy finger formed between the first interdigital transducer and the waveguide; and a second dummy finger formed between the second interdigital transducer and the waveguide as taught by Hara, for the purpose of suppressing degradation ([0017]).
Claims 7, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2007/0147723) in view of Li (CN 114035350 A, in view of the machine translation), further in view of Kadota (US 6,282,357).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yamada teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose further comprising: a Bragg mirror, wherein the piezoelectric layer is positioned on a top surface of the Bragg mirror; and a silicon substrate, wherein a bottom surface of the Bragg mirror is positioned on the silicon substrate.
However Kadota, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an acousto-optical device, teaches further comprising: a Bragg mirror (Fig. 1, element 2, examiner interprets the SiO2 buffer layer to be a bragg mirror layer as it deflects light for specific conditions), wherein the piezoelectric layer is positioned on a top surface of the Bragg mirror (piezoelectric layer 3 is on top of layer 2); and a silicon substrate (1), wherein a bottom surface of the Bragg mirror is positioned on the silicon substrate (2 is on top of 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the acousto-optical device of Yamada in view of Li with the further comprising: a Bragg mirror, wherein the piezoelectric layer is positioned on a top surface of the Bragg mirror; and a silicon substrate, wherein a bottom surface of the Bragg mirror is positioned on the silicon substrate as taught by Kadota, for the purpose of improving efficiency (Col. 2, lines 13-29).
Regarding claim 13, modified Yamada teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose further comprising: a silicon substrate; and a Bragg mirror formed between the silicon substrate and the piezoelectric layer.
However Kadota, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an acousto-optical device, teaches further comprising: a silicon substrate (Fig. 1, element 1, Col. 2, lines 66-67, “silicon substrate 1”); and a Bragg mirror (layer 2, examiner interprets the SiO2 layer to be a Bragg mirror) formed between the silicon substrate and the piezoelectric layer (2, Col. 2, lines 65-66, “an SiO.sub.2 film (buffer layer) 2 is formed on a surface of a silicon substrate 1”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the acousto-optical device of Yamada in view of Li with the further comprising: a silicon substrate; and a Bragg mirror formed between the silicon substrate and the piezoelectric layer as taught by Kadota, for the purpose of improving efficiency (Col. 2, lines 13-29).
Regarding claim 14, modified Yamada teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose further comprising: a silicon substrate; and a silicon oxide (SiO2) layer formed between the silicon substrate and the piezoelectric layer.
However Kadota, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an acousto-optical device, teaches further comprising: a silicon substrate (Fig. 1, element 1, Col. 2, lines 66-67, “silicon substrate 1”); and a silicon oxide (SiO2) layer formed between the silicon substrate and the piezoelectric layer (2, Col. 2, lines 65-66, “an SiO.sub.2 film (buffer layer) 2 is formed on a surface of a silicon substrate 1”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the acousto-optical device of Yamada in view of Li with the further comprising: a silicon substrate; and a silicon oxide (SiO2) layer formed between the silicon substrate and the piezoelectric layer as taught by Kadota, for the purpose of improving efficiency (Col. 2, lines 13-29).
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2007/0147723) in view of Li (CN 114035350 A, in view of the machine translation), further in view of Li2 (US 2022/0206358).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yamada teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein a pitch of the first interdigital transducer and a pitch of the second interdigital transducer is selected for targeted modulation via Brillouin scattering within the waveguide.
However Li2, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an acousto-optical device, teaches wherein a pitch of the first interdigital transducer and a pitch of the second interdigital transducer is selected for targeted modulation via Brillouin scattering within the waveguide ([0072], “the first and second acoustic sources 306 and 326 are configured and positioned to provide wavelengths and propagation directions sufficient to satisfy the phase-matching condition of acousto-optic Brillouin scattering, thereby scattering the light out of the x-y plane”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the acousto-optical device of Yamada in view of Li with the wherein a pitch of the first interdigital transducer and a pitch of the second interdigital transducer is selected for targeted modulation via Brillouin scattering within the waveguide as taught by Li2, for the purpose of steering the optical beam in 2D ([0064]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yamada teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein acoustic resonance properties of the first interdigital transducer and the second interdigital transducer are selected to facilitate an optical phase shift within the waveguide by Brillouin scattering.
However Li2, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an acousto-optical device, teaches wherein acoustic resonance properties of the first interdigital transducer and the second interdigital transducer are selected to facilitate an optical phase shift within the waveguide by Brillouin scattering ([0072], “the first and second acoustic sources 306 and 326 are configured and positioned to provide wavelengths and propagation directions sufficient to satisfy the phase-matching condition of acousto-optic Brillouin scattering, thereby scattering the light out of the x-y plane”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the acousto-optical device of Yamada in view of Li with the wherein acoustic resonance properties of the first interdigital transducer and the second interdigital transducer are selected to facilitate an optical phase shift within the waveguide by Brillouin scattering as taught by Li2, for the purpose of steering the optical beam in 2D ([0064]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2007/0147723) in view of Li (CN 114035350 A, in view of the machine translation), further in view of Zhong (CN 117811524 A, as evidenced by the machine translation).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yamada teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the first interdigital transducer and the second interdigital transducer are associated with a resonance frequency selected to generate a double stress node in the waveguide.
However Zhong, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an acousto-optical device, teaches wherein the first interdigital transducer and the second interdigital transducer ([0018], “conductive electrodes on both sides of the spin waveguide on the substrate”) are associated with a resonance frequency selected to generate a double stress node in the waveguide (Fig. 4, 1GHz condition shows a double stress node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the acousto-optical device of Yamada in view of Li with the wherein the first interdigital transducer and the second interdigital transducer are associated with a resonance frequency selected to generate a double stress node in the waveguide as taught by Zhong, for the purpose of improving control precision of the frequency comb ([0042]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yamada teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the first interdigital transducer and the second interdigital transducer are associated with a resonance frequency selected to generate a single stress node in the waveguide for inter-modal scattering.
However Zhong, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an acousto-optical device, teaches wherein the first interdigital transducer and the second interdigital transducer ([0018], “conductive electrodes on both sides of the spin waveguide on the substrate”) are associated with a resonance frequency selected to generate a single stress node in the waveguide for inter-modal scattering (Fig. 4, 2GHz condition shows a single stress node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the acousto-optical device of Yamada in view of Li with the wherein the first interdigital transducer and the second interdigital transducer are associated with a resonance frequency selected to generate a single stress node in the waveguide for inter-modal scattering as taught by Zhong, for the purpose of improving control precision of the frequency comb ([0042]).
Claim 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2007/0147723) in view of Yoshioka (US 2023/0084321), further in view of Li (CN 114035350 A, in view of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 15, Yamada discloses a solidly mounted acousto-optic device (Figs. 1-5, element 11) formed by a method comprising:
forming a piezoelectric layer layer (2, [0054], “piezoelectric substrate 2”) having a top surface and a bottom surface (2a is a top surface and an opposite surface is a bottom surface),
forming a waveguide (3) on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer ([0054], “optical waveguide 3 is formed in a widthwise-direction central portion of an upper surface 2a of the piezoelectric substrate”).
Yamada does not specifically disclose fabricating a silicon handle wafer; wherein the piezoelectric layer comprises an epitaxial aluminum scandium nitride (AlScN) layer, and wherein the top surface of the piezoelectric layer is formed on a surface of the silicon handle wafer; forming a silicon waveguide out of the silicon handle wafer on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer.
However Yoshioka, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an acousto-optical device, teaches fabricating a silicon handle wafer (Fig. 2A, Si layer); wherein the piezoelectric layer comprises an epitaxial aluminum scandium nitride (AlScN) layer (Fig. 1A, 2A and 11B, AlScN layer), and wherein the top surface of the piezoelectric layer is formed on a surface of the silicon handle wafer (as shown in Fig. 2A, the piezoelectric layer is formed on the Si layer); forming a silicon waveguide out of the silicon handle wafer on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer ([0065], “The Al.sub.1-xSc.sub.xN films were deposited in a pulsed DC physical vapor deposition system”, as shown in Fig. 11B, the Si layer is formed into the waveguide).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the acousto-optical device of Yamada with the fabricating a silicon handle wafer; wherein the piezoelectric layer comprises an epitaxial aluminum scandium nitride (AlScN) layer, and wherein the top surface of the piezoelectric layer is formed on a surface of the silicon handle wafer; forming a silicon waveguide out of the silicon handle wafer on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer as taught by Yoshioka, for the purpose of lowering cost and improving efficiency ([0060]).
Modified Yamada does not specifically disclose forming a first interdigital transducer on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer, wherein the first interdigital transducer is positioned on a first side of the waveguide; and forming a second interdigital transducer on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer, wherein the second interdigital transducer is positioned on a second side of the waveguide opposite the first side.
However Li, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an acousto-optical device, teaches forming a first interdigital transducer (Fig. 1, element 3a) on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer (2, [0024], “2-focusing acoustic wave plate”, [0009], “acoustic wave plate is symmetrical about the strip-shaped transmission waveguide backbone and both are made of piezoelectric material”), wherein the first interdigital transducer is positioned on a first side of the waveguide (as shown in Fig. 1, 3a is located on a first side of the waveguide 1); and forming a second interdigital transducer (3b) on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer (2), wherein the second interdigital transducer is positioned on a second side of the waveguide opposite the first side (as shown in Fig. 1, 3b is located on a second side of waveguide 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the acousto-optical device of Yamada in view of Yoshioka with the forming a first interdigital transducer on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer, wherein the first interdigital transducer is positioned on a first side of the waveguide; and forming a second interdigital transducer on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer, wherein the second interdigital transducer is positioned on a second side of the waveguide opposite the first side as taught by Li, for the purpose of improving efficiency and avoiding absorption loss of optical modes ([0004]).
Regarding claim 17, Yamada discloses a solidly mounted acousto-optical device (Figs. 1-5, element 11) comprising:
a piezoelectric layer layer (2, [0054], “piezoelectric substrate 2”) comprising a top surface and a bottom surface (2a is a top surface and an opposite surface is a bottom surface);
a waveguide (3) on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer ([0054], “optical waveguide 3 is formed in a widthwise-direction central portion of an upper surface 2a of the piezoelectric substrate”).
Yamada does not specifically disclose an epitaxial aluminum scandium nitride (AlScN) piezoelectric layer comprising a top surface and a bottom surface; a silicon (Si) waveguide on the top surface of the epitaxial AlScN piezoelectric layer.
However Yoshioka, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an acousto-optical device, teaches an epitaxial aluminum scandium nitride (AlScN) piezoelectric layer (Fig. 1A, 2A and 11B, AlScN layer) comprising a top surface and a bottom surface (as shown in Fig. 2A, the piezoelectric layer has a top and bottom surfaces); a silicon (Si) waveguide (Fig. 2A, Si layer) on the top surface of the epitaxial AlScN piezoelectric layer (as shown in Fig. 2A, the piezoelectric layer is formed on the Si layer, as shown in Fig. 11B, the Si layer is formed into the waveguide).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the acousto-optical device of Yamada with the epitaxial aluminum scandium nitride (AlScN) piezoelectric layer comprising a top surface and a bottom surface; a silicon (Si) waveguide on the top surface of the epitaxial AlScN piezoelectric layer as taught by Yoshioka, for the purpose of lowering cost and improving efficiency ([0060]).
Modified Yamada does not specifically disclose a first interdigital transducer disposed on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer, wherein the first interdigital transducer is positioned on a first side of the waveguide; and a second interdigital transducer disposed on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer, wherein the second interdigital transducer is positioned on a second side of the waveguide opposite the first side.
However Li, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an acousto-optical device, teaches a first interdigital transducer (Fig. 1, element 3a ) disposed on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer (2, [0024], “2-focusing acoustic wave plate”, [0009], “acoustic wave plate is symmetrical about the strip-shaped transmission waveguide backbone and both are made of piezoelectric material”), wherein the first interdigital transducer is positioned on a first side of the waveguide (as shown in Fig. 1, 3a is located on a first side of the waveguide 1); and a second interdigital transducer (3b) disposed on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer (2), wherein the second interdigital transducer is positioned on a second side of the waveguide opposite the first side (as shown in Fig. 1, 3b is located on a second side of waveguide 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the acousto-optical device of Yamada in view of Yoshioka with the first interdigital transducer disposed on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer, wherein the first interdigital transducer is positioned on a first side of the waveguide; and a second interdigital transducer disposed on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer, wherein the second interdigital transducer is positioned on a second side of the waveguide opposite the first side as taught by Li, for the purpose of improving efficiency and avoiding absorption loss of optical modes ([0004]).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2007/0147723) in view of Yoshioka (US 2023/0084321), further in view of Li (CN 114035350 A, in view of the machine translation) and Kadota (US 6,282,357).
Regarding claim 16, modified Yamada teaches as is set forth in claim 15 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the method further comprises: forming a Bragg mirror having a top surface and a bottom surface, wherein the top surface is formed on the bottom surface of the piezoelectric layer.
However Kadota, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an acousto-optical device, teaches wherein the method further comprises: forming a Bragg mirror (Fig. 1, element 2, examiner interprets the SiO2 buffer layer to be a bragg mirror layer as it deflects light for specific conditions) having a top surface and a bottom surface, wherein the top surface is formed on the bottom surface of the piezoelectric layer (piezoelectric layer 3 is on top of layer 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the acousto-optical device of Yamada in view of Yoshioka further in view of Li with the wherein the method further comprises: forming a Bragg mirror having a top surface and a bottom surface, wherein the top surface is formed on the bottom surface of the piezoelectric layer as taught by Kadota, for the purpose of improving efficiency (Col. 2, lines 13-29).
Regarding claim 20, modified Yamada teaches as is set forth in claim 17 rejection above but does not specifically disclose further comprising: a Bragg mirror, wherein the epitaxial AlScN piezoelectric layer is positioned on a top surface of the Bragg mirror; and a silicon substrate, wherein a bottom surface of the Bragg mirror is positioned on the silicon substrate.
However Kadota, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an acousto-optical device, teaches further comprising: a Bragg mirror (Fig. 1, element 2, examiner interprets the SiO2 buffer layer to be a bragg mirror layer as it deflects light for specific conditions), wherein the epitaxial AlScN piezoelectric layer is positioned on a top surface of the Bragg mirror (piezoelectric layer 3 is on top of layer 2); and a silicon substrate, wherein a bottom surface of the Bragg mirror is positioned on the silicon substrate (2 is on top of 1).
Claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2007/0147723) in view of Yoshioka (US 2023/0084321), further in view of Li (CN 114035350 A, in view of the machine translation) and Hara (US 2018/0307116).
Regarding claim 18, modified Yamada teaches as is set forth in claim 17 rejection above but does not specifically disclose further comprising: a first dummy finger formed between the first interdigital transducer and the Si waveguide; and a second dummy finger formed between the second interdigital transducer and the Si waveguide.
However Hara, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an acousto-optical device, teaches further comprising: a first dummy finger (Fig. 2, E5) formed between the first interdigital transducer (C2) and the Si waveguide (B1); and a second dummy finger (E6) formed between the second interdigital transducer (C4) and the Si waveguide (B1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the acousto-optical device of Yamada in view of Yoshioka further in view of Li with the further comprising: a first dummy finger formed between the first interdigital transducer and the Si waveguide; and a second dummy finger formed between the second interdigital transducer and the Si waveguide as taught by Hara, for the purpose of suppressing degradation ([0017]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, and 19 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
Specifically, regarding claim 6, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest wherein the first dummy finger and the second dummy finger comprise a non-conductive dielectric material.
Specifically, regarding claim 8, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest wherein the Bragg mirror comprises alternating layers of high impedance material and low impedance material comprising at least: a top low impedance layer positioned at the bottom surface of the piezoelectric layer, a bottom low impedance layer formed at an interface with the silicon substrate, and an intermediate high impedance layer between the top low impedance layer and the bottom low impedance layer.
Specifically, regarding claim 19, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest wherein the first dummy finger and the second dummy finger comprise a non-conductive dielectric material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Miyata (US 2005/0259906), Chu (US 5,418,866), Graebner (US 6,052,497), Schmid (US 6,195,476) teach an acousto-optical device comprising: a piezoelectric layer comprising a top surface and a bottom surface; a waveguide on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer; a first interdigital transducer disposed on the top surface of the piezoelectric layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270 - 1284. 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.
/MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 31 July 2026
Prosecution Insights