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 .
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.
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 1-20 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 claims 1, 7, and 16: Claims 1, 7, and 16 recite “a first instance of an optical splitter” and “a second instance of the optical splitter”. This language is unclear because “a first instance of an optical splitter” and “a second instance of the optical splitter” appear to be referring to two different optical splitters. Therefore “the optical splitter” lacks proper antecedent basis, since with proper antecedent basis, “the optical splitter” would refer to the same optical splitter as previously defined. For the purpose of examination, “a first instance of an” is interpreted as “a first” and “a second instance of the” is interpreted as “a second”.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 16: Claims 1, 7, and 16 also recite “a first instance of an optical combiner” and “a second instance of the optical combiner”. For similar reasons, “the optical combiner” lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, “a first instance of an” is interpreted as “a first” and “a second instance of the” is interpreted as “a second”.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 18: Claims 1, 7, and 18 also recite “a first instance of electrical pads” and “a second instance of the electrical pads” For similar reasons, “the electrical pads” lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, “a first instance of” is interpreted as “first” and “a second instance of the” is interpreted as “second”.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 16: “A device for characterizing a traveling-wave Mach-Zehnder modulator (TWMZM)” including a test TWMZM and a reference TWMZM. It is unclear whether the traveling-wave Mach-Zehnder modulator that the device characterizes is the test TWMZM, the reference TWMZM, or another TWMZM. For the purpose of examination, any of these interpretations is understood to read on the claims.
Regarding claims 2 and 11: The limitation “the optical splitter includes a path length difference between first and second optical paths of the optical splitter” is unclear for several reasons. Claims 1 and 7, respectively, define two “instances” of the optical splitter, understood to refer to two different splitters. Therefore the optical splitter lacks proper antecedent basis. Additionally, “first and second optical paths of the optical splitter” is unclear because it does not clearly point to any particular structure of the device. What are the “first and second optical paths”? Are they portions of waveguides leading out of the branching location? A portion of the waveguide before the branching location? What structures define the boundaries of these optical paths? For the purpose of examination, examiner is interpreting this claim limitation as requiring an optical path leading up to or away from either of the first or second instances of the optical splitter to have a different length compared to another of these optical paths, but as understood by the examiner, there is not anything in the claim that limits how the boundary is drawn.
Regarding claims 3 and 12: The limitation “the optical combiner includes a path length difference between first and second optical paths of the optical combiner” is unclear for similar reasons, and it is interpreted similarly, i.e. the claim limitation is interpreted as requiring an optical path leading up to or away from either of the first or second instances of the optical combiner to have a different length compared to another of these optical paths, but as understood by the examiner, there is not anything in the claim that limits how the boundary is drawn.
Regarding claim 10: The limitation “each optical waveguide comprises a raised ridge of the corresponding silicon n/p junction” is unclear. The phrase “raised ridge of the corresponding silicon n/p junction” suggests that some corresponding structure of the silicon n/p junction has already been established but no such structure was previously defined. Does it mean that that the silicon n/p junction has a raised ridge and that the raised ridge is also part of the optical waveguide? Does it instead mean that each optical waveguide has a raised ridge that is near to a corresponding silicon n/p junction? For the purpose of examination, it is being treated as requiring that each optical waveguide has a raised ridge in any spatial relationship with a silicon n/p junction.
Regarding claim 19: Similarly, the limitations “the first optical waveguide comprises a raised ridge of the first n-p junction strip, and the second optical waveguide comprises a raised ridge of the second n-p junction strip” is unclear. For the purpose of examination, it is being treated as requiring that the first and the second optical waveguide each have a raised ridge in any spatial relationship with a silicon n/p junction.
Regarding claim 16: The limitations “a traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator including first and second optical waveguides and a radio frequency (RF) transmission line electrically coupled with the first and second optical waveguides, wherein the RF transmission line comprises first and second n-p junction strips, the first optical waveguide comprises the first n-p junction strip, and the second optical waveguide comprises the second n-p junction strip” are unclear. On one hand, the RF transmission line and the optical waveguide are claimed as separate elements electrically coupled with each other. On the other hand, they are described as comprising the same structure. Are they separate elements or are they the same? From the disclosure (Figs. 3a-c and paragraph 0026 of the PG Pub associated with the present application), it appears that the transmission line includes the n-p junction strip, which contains the optical waveguides. Therefore, for the purpose of examination, the optical waveguides are understood to be a part of the RF transmission line.
Regarding claims 2-6, 8-15, and 17-20: Dependent claims 2-6, 8-15, and 17-20 inherently contain all of the deficiencies of any base and/or intervening claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugiyama et al. (US 2005/0213863; hereinafter Sugiyama).
Regarding claim 1: Sugiyama disclosesA device for characterizing a traveling-wave Mach-Zehnder modulator (TWMZM), the device comprising: a test TWMZM (Fig. 6, clock modulator 20) including a phase modulator (see annotated Fig. 6) with first and second optical waveguides (see annotated Fig. 6) and a radio frequency (RF) transmission line (Fig. 6, electrodes carrying clock signal and waveguides in vicinity of said electrodes, i.e. the first and second waveguides) electrically coupled with the first and second optical waveguides, a first optical splitter (see annotated Fig. 6) optically coupled to input light to first ends of the first and second optical waveguides (see light path indicated on the left side of the device in Fig. 6), and a first optical combiner (see annotated Fig. 6) optically coupled to combine light from second ends of the first and second optical waveguides (see light path indicated on the left side of the device in Fig. 6); a reference TWMZM (Fig. 6, data modulator 30) including a vestigial phase modulator (see annotated Fig. 6) that is shorter than the phase modulator of the test TWMZM with vestigial first and second optical waveguides (see annotated Fig. 6) and a vestigial RF transmission line (Fig. 6, electrode carrying data signal and waveguides in vicinity of said electrodes, i.e. the vestigial first and second optical waveguides) electrically coupled with the vestigial first and second optical waveguides, a second optical splitter (see annotated Fig. 6) optically coupled to input light to first ends of the vestigial first and second optical waveguides (see light path on left side of device in Fig. 6), and a second optical combiner (see annotated Fig. 6) optically coupled to combine light from second ends of the vestigial first and second optical waveguides (see light path on left side of device in Fig. 6); a test structure including the test TWMZM and a first instance of electrical pads connected to drive the RF transmission line of the test TWMZM (see paragraph 0084; in Fig. 6, it is understood that they correspond to the structures that reference characters 21Aa and 21Ba point to); and a reference structure including the reference TWMZM and a second instance of the electrical pads connected to drive the vestigial RF transmission line of the reference TWMZM (in Fig. 6, it is understood that they correspond to the structures that reference character 31a points to; while the spec identifies 31a as a waveguide, the arrow in Fig. 6 points to an electrical contact associated with the vestigial RF transmission line).
Annotated Fig. 6:
PNG
media_image1.png
419
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2: Sugiyama disclosesThe device of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein: the optical splitter includes a path length difference between first and second optical paths of the optical splitter (annotated Fig. 6 shows that the length between the branching point of the first optical splitter and the left ends of the first and second optical waveguides have different path lengths; these are considered to be the first and second optical paths of the optical splitter).
Regarding claim 3: Sugiyama disclosesThe device of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein: the optical combiner includes a path length difference between first and second optical paths of the optical combiner (annotated Fig. 6 shows that the length between the junction point of the first optical combiner and the right ends of the first and second optical waveguides within the phase modulator have different path lengths; these are considered to be the first and second optical paths of the optical combiner).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 7-8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (US 2005/0213863; hereinafter Sugiyama).
Regarding claim 7: Sugiyama disclosesA device for characterizing a traveling-wave Mach-Zehnder modulator (TWMZM), the device comprising: a test TWMZM (Fig. 6, clock modulator 20) including a traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator (see annotated Fig. 6), a first optical splitter (see annotated Fig. 6) optically coupled to input light to the traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator (see light path indicated on the left side of the device in Fig. 6), and a first optical combiner (see annotated Fig. 6) optically coupled to combine light output from the traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator (see light path indicated on the left side of the device in Fig. 6); a reference TWMZM (Fig. 6, data modulator 30) including a vestigial traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator (see annotated Fig. 6) that is shorter than the traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator of the test TWMZM (annotated Fig. 6 shows this), Sugiyama further disclosesa second optical splitter (see annotated Fig. 6) optically coupled to input light to the vestigial traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator (see light path on left side of device in Fig. 6), and a second optical combiner (see annotated Fig. 6) optically coupled to combine light output from the vestigial traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator (see light path on left side of device in Fig. 6); first electrical pads (see paragraph 0084; in Fig. 6, it is understood that they correspond to the structures that reference characters 21Aa and 21Ba point to) connected to electrooptically modulate light traveling through the traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator; and second electrical pads (in Fig. 6, it is understood that they correspond to the structures that reference character 31a points to; while the spec identifies 31a as a waveguide, the arrow in Fig. 6 points to an electrical contact associated with the vestigial RF transmission line) connected to electrooptically modulate light traveling through the vestigial traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator.
Therefore, Sugiyama discloses or suggests all of the limitations of claim 7, as applied above, but does not disclose that the vestigial traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator is of a length of 50 microns or less. However, the length of the vestigial traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator is a result effective variable, since the length affects the amount of modulation that the modulator can achieve at a given wavelength. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the vestigial traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator with a length of 50 microns or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), 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)), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 8: Modified Sugiyama teachesThe device of claim 7 (as applied above), wherein: the traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator of the test TWMZM includes first and second optical waveguides (see annotated Fig. 6) and a radio frequency (RF) transmission line electrically coupled with the first and second optical waveguides (see Fig. 6, electrodes running parallel to optical waveguides of the test TWMZM); and the vestigial traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator of the reference TWMZM includes vestigial first and second optical waveguides (see annotated Fig. 6) having a length of 50 micron or less (per the modification described in the rejection of claim 7, the vestigial traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator, including vestigial first and second optical waveguides, has a length of 50 microns or less) and a vestigial RF transmission line electrically coupled with the vestigial first and second optical waveguides (see Fig. 6, electrodes running parallel to optical waveguides of the vestigial traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator).
Regarding claim 11: Modified Sugiyama teachesThe device of claim 7 (as applied above), wherein: the optical splitter includes a path length difference between first and second optical paths of the optical splitter (annotated Fig. 6 shows that the first optical splitter includes a path length difference between first and second optical paths).
Regarding claim 12: Modified Sugiyama teachesThe device of claim 7 (as applied above), wherein: the optical combiner includes a path length difference between first -and second optical paths of the optical combiner (annotated Fig. 6 shows that the first optical combiner includes a path length difference between first and second optical paths).
Regarding claim 13: Modified Sugiyama teachesThe device of claim 7 (as applied above), further comprising: a wafer providing a substrate on which all of the test TWMZM, the reference TWMZM, the first instance of the electrical pads, and the second instance of the electrical pads are disposed (Sugiyama Fig. 6 shows the test TWMZM, the reference TWMZM, the first instance of the electrical pads, and the second instance of the electrical pads all disposed on a single wafer).
Regarding claim 14: Modified Sugiyama teaches the device of claim 13, as applied above, and the Sugiyama modulators together constitute a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) fabricated on the single silicon or SOI wafer.
Regarding claim 15: Modified Sugiyama teachesThe device of claim 7 (as applied above), further comprising: a network analyzer (the apparatus for monitoring light described in Sugiyama paragraph 0066) configured to acquire: an electrooptic measurement of a test structure including the test TWMZM and the first instance of the electrical pads; and an electrooptic measurement of a reference structure including the reference TWMZM and the second instance of the electrical pads (the modified Sugiyama device is capable of acquiring, and therefore considered to be configured to acquire, an electrooptic measurement of a test structure including the test TWMZM and the first instance of the electrical pads and an electrooptic measurement of a reference structure including the reference TWMZM and the second instance of the electrical pads).
Claims 4-6, 9-10, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (US 2005/0213863; hereinafter Sugiyama) in view of Goi et al. (US Patent No. 9,817,294; hereinafter Goi).
Regarding claim 4: Sugiyama discloses the device of claim 1, as applied above. Sugiyama further discloses that both the test TWMZM and the reference TWMZM are disposed on the same substrate (Fig. 6 shows this). Sugiyama fails to disclose that the device further comprises a single silicon or silicon-on-insulator (SOI) wafer and that the test TWMZM and the reference TWMZM are both disposed on the single silicon or SOI wafer. However, Goi, also related to devices including traveling wave Mach-Zehnder optical modulators (see title and abstract), teaches silicon modulators formed on silicon-on-insulator substrates (see Fig. 7 and col. 24, lines 1-20), which allow for high speed modulation with a small device footprint (see col. 12, lines 10-18) while also utilizing a common semiconductor material which can be easily integrated with semiconductor devices of related art (see col. 2, lines 25-38). In order to easily integrate the Sugiyama optical modulator with other silicon photonic and electronic devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to fabricate the Sugiyama optical modulator device on a single SOI wafter, and to form the modulators using silicon, since it was previously taught by Goi.
Regarding claim 5: Modified Sugiyama discloses the device of claim 4, as applied above, and the Sugiyama modulators together constitute a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) fabricated on the single silicon or SOI wafer. Additionally, since Goi suggests that the silicon modulators can be integrated with other semiconductor devices in the related art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include other semiconductor devices in the photonic integrated circuit of the modified Sugiyama device in order to combine the functionality of the modulator with other components, as is conventional in the art.
Regarding claim 6: Sugiyama teaches the device of claim 1, as applied above. Sugiyama fails to teach that in each of the phase modulator and the vestigial phase modulator, each optical waveguide comprises a silicon n/p junction. However, Goi, also related to devices including traveling wave Mach-Zehnder optical modulators (see title and abstract), teaches silicon modulators including silicon n/p junctions formed on silicon-on-insulator substrates (see Fig. 7 and col. 24, lines 1-52) which allow for high speed modulation with a small device footprint (see col. 12, lines 10-18) while also utilizing a common semiconductor material which can be easily integrated with semiconductor devices of related art (see col. 2, lines 25-38). In order to easily integrate the Sugiyama optical modulator with other silicon photonic and electronic devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to fabricate the Sugiyama optical modulator device such that, in each of the phase modulator and the vestigial phase modulator, each optical waveguide comprises a silicon n/p junction, since it was taught by Goi.
Regarding claim 9: Modified Sugiyama teaches the device of claim 8, as applied above. Sugiyama fails to teach that in the test TWMZM, each optical waveguide comprises a silicon n/p junction and the transmission line is electrically coupled with the silicon n/p junctions of the optical waveguides; and in the reference TWMZM, each vestigial optical waveguide comprises a silicon n/p junction and the vestigial RF transmission line is electrically coupled with the silicon n/p junctions of the vestigial optical waveguides. However, Goi, also related to devices including traveling wave Mach-Zehnder optical modulators (see title and abstract), teaches silicon modulators including silicon n/p junctions formed on silicon-on-insulator substrates (see Fig. 7 and col. 24, lines 1-52) which allow for high speed modulation with a small device footprint (see col. 12, lines 10-18) while also utilizing a common semiconductor material which can be easily integrated with semiconductor devices of related art (see col. 2, lines 25-38). In order to easily integrate the Sugiyama optical modulator with other silicon photonic and electronic devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to fabricate the Sugiyama optical modulator device such that, in each of the phase modulator and the vestigial phase modulator, each optical waveguide comprises a silicon n/p junction, since it was taught by Goi. When making the modification, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to electrically couple the silicon n/p junctions of the optical waveguides and vestigial optical waveguides with RF transmission lines, since Sugiyama teaches electrically coupling the waveguides with RF transmission lines for the traveling-wave phase modulation (see paragraphs 0094-0095).
Regarding claim 10: Modified Sugiyama teachesThe device of claim 9 (as applied above), wherein: in the test TWMZM, each optical waveguide comprises a raised ridge of the corresponding silicon n/p junction (in the modified Sugiyama device described above, the structure of the silicon n/p junction and optical waveguides is a raised ridge, as shown in Goi Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 16: Sugiyama disclosesA device for characterizing a traveling-wave Mach-Zehnder modulator (TWMZM), the device comprising: a test TWMZM (Fig. 6, clock modulator 20) including: a traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator (see annotated Fig. 6) including first and second optical waveguides (see annotated Fig. 6) and a radio frequency (RF) transmission line (Fig. 6, electrodes carrying clock signal and waveguides in vicinity of said electrodes, i.e. the first and second waveguides) electrically coupled with the first and second optical waveguides.
Sugiyama further disclosesa first optical splitter (see annotated Fig. 6) optically coupled to input light to the traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator (see light path indicated on the left side of the device in Fig. 6), and a first optical combiner (see annotated Fig. 6) optically coupled to combine light output from the traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator (see light path indicated on the left side of the device in Fig. 6); anda reference TWMZM (Fig. 6, data modulator 30) including: a vestigial traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator (see annotated Fig. 6) that is shorter than the traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator of the test TWMZM, a second optical splitter (see annotated Fig. 6) optically coupled to input light to the vestigial traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator (see light path indicated on the left side of the device in Fig. 6), and a second optical combiner (see annotated Fig. 6) optically coupled to combine light output from the vestigial traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator (see light path indicated on the left side of the device in Fig. 6).
Sugiyama fails to teach that the RF transmission line comprises first and second n-p junction strips, the first optical waveguide comprises the first n-p junction strip, and the second optical waveguide comprises the second n-p junction strip. However, Goi, also related to devices including traveling wave Mach-Zehnder optical modulators (see title and abstract), teaches silicon modulators including silicon n/p junctions formed on silicon-on-insulator substrates (see Fig. 7 and col. 24, lines 1-52) which allow for high speed modulation with a small device footprint (see col. 12, lines 10-18) while also utilizing a common semiconductor material which can be easily integrated with semiconductor devices of related art (see col. 2, lines 25-38). In order to easily integrate the Sugiyama optical modulator with other silicon photonic and electronic devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to fabricate the Sugiyama optical modulator device such that the RF transmission line comprises first and second n-p junction strips, the first optical waveguide comprises the first n-p junction strip, and the second optical waveguide comprises the second n-p junction strip, since it was taught by Goi.
Regarding claim 17: Modified Sugiyama teaches the device of claim 16, as applied above. but does not disclose that the vestigial traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator is of a length of 50 microns or less. However, the length of the vestigial traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator is a result effective variable, since the length affects the amount of modulation that the modulator can achieve at a given wavelength. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the vestigial traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator with a length of 50 microns or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), 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)), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 18: Modified Sugiyama teachesThe device of claim 16 (as applied above), further comprising: first electrical pads (see paragraph 0084; in Fig. 6, it is understood that they correspond to the structures that reference characters 21Aa and 21Ba point to) connected to electrooptically modulate light traveling through the traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator; and a second instance of the electrical pads (in Fig. 6, it is understood that they correspond to the structures that reference characters 31a points to; while the disclosure identifies 31a as a waveguide, the arrow in Fig. 6 points to an electrical contact associated with the vestigial RF transmission line) connected to electrooptically modulate light traveling through the vestigial traveling-wave electrooptic phase modulator.
Regarding claim 19: Modified Sugiyama teachesThe device of claim 16 (as applied above), wherein: the first optical waveguide comprises a raised ridge of the first n-p junction strip (in the modified Sugiyama device described above, the structure of the silicon n/p junction and optical waveguides is a raised ridge, as shown in Goi Fig. 7), and the second optical waveguide comprises a raised ridge of the second n-p junction strip (in the modified Sugiyama device described above, the structure of the silicon n/p junction and optical waveguides is a raised ridge, as shown in Goi Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 20: Modified Sugiyama disclosesThe device of claim 16 (as applied above), wherein: the optical splitter includes a path length difference between first and second optical paths of the optical splitter, or the optical combiner includes a path length difference between first and second optical paths of the optical combiner (annotated Fig. 6 shows that the first optical combiner includes a path length difference between first and second optical paths).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights