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 prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed on August 5, 2024 and December 23, 2024 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second SOPC element disposed on the second waveguide portion” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8, and claim 4, line 7, “SOPE element” should read “SOPC element”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 8, 10-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epping et al. (US 20190171043 A1), hereafter Epping, in view of Porter et al. (US 20220413232 A1), hereafter Porter.
Regarding claim 1; Epping teaches (see Figure 3):
an apparatus comprising a phase controller (104; Paragraph [0016-0017]) that includes:
a first waveguide (302) portion for guiding a light signal characterized by a mode field (324) having a mode-field diameter (D1x), wherein
the first waveguide portion (302) is disposed on a substrate (116) and includes
a first core (308); and
a first stress-optic phase-control (SOPC) element (304; Paragraph [0049]) disposed on the first waveguide portion (302),
wherein the first SOPC element (304) is configured to induce a first stress (Paragraph [0052]) in the first core (308), and
wherein the first SOPC element (304) includes:
first (312-1) and second electrodes (312-2); and
a first piezoelectric layer (314) that is electrically coupled with each of the first (312-1) and second (312-2) electrodes (Paragraph [0016-0017]).
Epping does not teach a first core that includes at least one cavity that is located within the mode-field diameter. However, in the same field of endeavor, Porter teaches (see Figure 4 and 4B) a waveguide with at least one cavity (52; Paragraph [0038]) located inside the waveguide core (12), which is inherently within the mode-field diameter. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Porter’s cavities into Epping’s waveguide core with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Porter teaches that “The sealed cavities 52 and the sealed cavities 54 may relax the index contrast, modify the mode distribution, and facilitate light interactions resulting in the improved optical coupling performance” (Paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 2; Epping and Porter teach the apparatus of claim 1. Epping further teaches (see Figure 1):
a plurality of waveguides (106, 108A, 108B, 110) disposed on the substrate (116),
the plurality of waveguides (106, 108A, 108B, 110) being arranged to collectively define a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (102)
having an input port (106), an output port (110), a first arm (108B; lower arm) that includes a first waveguide (108B) of the plurality thereof, and
a second arm (108A; upper arm) comprising a second waveguide (108A) of the plurality thereof,
wherein the first waveguide (108B) includes the first waveguide portion (the first waveguide portion defined by claim 1 is the portion with the phase controller (104) which contains the SOPC element (304); Paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 3; Epping and Porter teach the apparatus of claim 2, but Epping fails to disclose (see Figure 1) wherein the first arm (108B) has a first length and the second arm (108A) has a second length that is different than the first length. However, Epping teaches that “the lengths of arms 108A and 108B are designed such that light signals 112A and 112B are in phase and constructively combine at output waveguide 110 when phase controller 104 is in its quiescent state” (Paragraph [0032]). Mach-Zehnder Interferometers (MZIs) are well known devices in the art and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the lengths of the arms as necessary to control the relative phase between the light signals that travel through the two arms.
Regarding claim 4; Epping and Porter teach the apparatus of claim 2. Epping further teaches (see Figures 1 and 3) wherein the second waveguide (108A) includes:
a second waveguide portion (108A) for guiding the light signal, the second waveguide portion (108A) including a second core (Figure 3, element 308) that includes at least one cavity that is located within the mode-field diameter (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Epping and Porter do not teach a second SOPC element on the second waveguide portion (108A). However, the second SOPC element disposed on the second waveguide portion (108A) is a mere duplicate of the first SOPC element (304; the phase controller (104) contains the first SOPC element (304), see Figure 3) which is disposed on the first waveguide portion (108B). Epping and Porter teach the complete structure of the first SOPC element (see rejection of claim 1 above). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to duplicate the first SOPC element (304; the phase controller (104) contains the first SOPC element (304), see Figure 3)) on the first waveguide portion (108B) to also include a second SOPC element on the second waveguide portion (108A), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 8; Epping and Porter teach the apparatus of claim 1. Epping further teaches (see Figures 5C and 5D) wherein the first core (308) is located between a lower cladding (306) and an upper cladding (310), and wherein the upper cladding (310) includes a dome (surface 522 with projection 316; Paragraph [0066]) that is located above the first core (308; see Figure 5C), the first SOPC element (see Figure 5D, element 304) being disposed on the dome (522; Paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 10; Epping teaches (see Figures 4-5D):
A method (400; Paragraph [0017, 0055]) comprising forming a phase controller (104) via operations including:
forming a first waveguide (502) for guiding a light signal characterized by a mode field having a mode-field diameter (MFD) (Paragraph [0055-0057]),
wherein the first waveguide (502) is formed on a substrate (116; Paragraph [0055])
forming a first stress-optic phase-control element (304) on the first waveguide portion (Paragraph [0067]),
wherein the first stress-optic phase-control element (304) is configured to induce a first stress (SP1A, SP1B, SP2A, SP2B) in the first core (308; Paragraph [0071]), and
wherein the first stress-optic phase-control element (304) is formed such that it includes:
first (312-1) and second (312-2) electrodes (Paragraph [0069]; and
a piezoelectric layer (314) disposed between the first (312-1) and second (312-2) electrodes (Paragraph [0070]).
Epping does not teach that the first waveguide includes a first waveguide portion having a first core that comprises at least one cavity that is located within the mode-field diameter. However, in the same field of endeavor, Porter teaches (see Figure 4 and 4B) in Paragraph [0038] how to form a cavity (52) in a waveguide core (12), which is inherently within the mode-field diameter. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Porter’s cavities into Epping’s waveguide core with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Porter teaches that “The sealed cavities 52 and the sealed cavities 54 may relax the index contrast, modify the mode distribution, and facilitate light interactions resulting in the improved optical coupling performance” (Paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 11; Epping and Porter teach the method of claim 10. Epping further teaches (see Figure 1; Paragraphs [0031-0033]) forming a plurality of waveguides (106, 108A, 108B, 110) on the substrate, wherein the plurality of waveguides (106, 108A, 108B, 110) is arranged to define a Mach-Zehnder Interferometer (102) having an input port (106), a first arm (108B) that includes the first waveguide (the first waveguide portion defined by claim 10 is the portion with the phase controller (104) which contains the SOPC element (304); Paragraph [0049]), a second arm (108A), and an output port (110).
Regarding claim 12; Epping and Porter teach the method of claim 10, but Epping does not explicitly teach (see Figure 1) wherein the first arm (108B) has a first length and the second arm (108A) has a second length that is different than the first length. However, Epping teaches that “the lengths of arms 108A and 108B are designed such that light signals 112A and 112B are in phase and constructively combine at output waveguide 110 when phase controller 104 is in its quiescent state” (Paragraph [0032]). Mach-Zehnder Interferometers (MZIs) are well known devices in the art and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the lengths of the arms as necessary to control the relative phase between the light signals that travel through the two arms.
Regarding claim 14; Epping and Porter teach the method of claim 10. Epping further teaches (see Figures 5C and 5D; Paragraphs [0064-0068]) forming an upper cladding (310) on the first core (308) such that the upper cladding (310) includes a dome (surface 522 with projection 316; Paragraph [0066]) that is disposed above the first core (308; see Figure 5C), and wherein the first SOPC control element (see Figure 5D, element 304) is disposed on the dome (522; Paragraph [0067]).
Claims 5, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epping and Porter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Elsherbini et al. (US 20190173149 A1), hereafter Elsherbini.
Regarding claims 5, 7, and 13; Epping and Porter teach the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 10. Epping further teaches (see Figure 5B) wherein the first core (308) includes:
a lower core (508) comprising a first material (stoichiometric silicon nitride; Paragraph [0058]);
a central core (510) comprising a second material (stoichiometric silicon dioxide; Paragraph [0058]); and
an upper core (512) comprising the first material (stoichiometric silicon nitride; Paragraph [0058]);
Porter teaches (see Figure 4B; see rejections to claims 1 and 10 above):
wherein the at least one cavity (52) is at least partially located between the lower core and the upper core (the cavity is in the center of the core (12)).
Epping and Porter do not teach wherein the upper core (512) has a first width (w2) and the central core (510) has a second width (w2) that is less than the first width (Epping teaches the same width w2; Paragraph [0059]) and further do not teach wherein the first core has a cross-sectional shape that is an I-beam. However, in the same field of endeavor, Elsherbini teaches (see Figure 2, bottom left) wherein waveguide (208) includes a waveguide core formed in the shape of an I-beam (210) (Paragraph [0017-0018]). Therefore, Elsherbini teaches a waveguide wherein the upper core has a first width and the central core has a second width less than the first width due to the I-beam shape. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the I-beam shape taught by Elsherbini to form the waveguide core in the stress-optic phase-control element with cavities taught by Epping and Porter, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Elsherbini teaches, “The I-beam shape can provide structural support for the waveguide making it easier to physically install without buckling or kinking” (Paragraph [0018]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, and 15 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: The prior art of record, which is the most relevant prior art known, does not disclose or reasonably suggest:
The apparatus of claim 6, including the limitations of base claim 5, wherein the first width defines an extent of the upper core along a first direction, and wherein the at least one cavity extends beyond the extent of the upper core along the first direction.
The apparatus of claim 9, including the limitations of base claim 8, wherein the dome has a first central axis and the first core has a second central axis, and wherein the first and second central axes are displaced along a first dimension by a nonzero offset distance.
The method of claim 15, including the limitations of base claim 14, wherein the dome is formed such that it has a first central axis, and wherein the first core is formed such that it has a second central axis, wherein the first and second central axes are displaced along a first dimension by a nonzero offset distance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER L KAULFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7260. 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.
/P.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights