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 statements (IDS's) submitted comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement; please see attached forms PTO-1449.
Drawings
The drawings submitted have been reviewed and determined to facilitate understanding of the invention. The drawings are accepted as submitted.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the hybrid waveguide" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not entirely clear whether this claim limitation is intended to refer to Claim 1, which describes such a hybrid waveguide, or identify a separate element formed in the method of Claim 30.
For examination purposes, any hybrid waveguide including a silicon layer and a nonlinear optical material layer as described in Claim 30, shall be considered to meet the claim limitation.
Claims 31-36 depend from Clam 30 and fail to remedy the indefiniteness issue.
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.
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.
Claims 20-22, 29-30, 32 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Chinese publication CN 113777809 A to Huang et al. (“CN1”), cited in Applicant’s IDS received 20 September 2024, in view of WIPO publication WO 2021/169854 A1 to Gui et al. (“WO1”).
Please note that any citations herein to the text of CN1 are in reference to the attached machine translation.
Regarding Claim 20, CN1 describes an electro-optical modulator (see Figs 1, 4i), comprising:
a hybrid waveguide including stacked silicon (202) and nonlinear optical material layers (203), wherein the silicon layer and the nonlinear optical material layer do not contact each other; and
an electrode including a first electrode (205) and a second electrode (101) disposed on both sides of the hybrid waveguide, with the first and second electrodes extending through a portion of the hybrid waveguide (via 206).
CN1 does is silent as to the structures of the modulator allowing for connection/integration with a larger optical system.
WO1 describes an electro-optical modulator (see Figs 1, 2, 5, 6), comprising:
a hybrid waveguide including stacked silicon (201) and nonlinear optical material layers (202), wherein the silicon layer and the nonlinear optical material layer do not contact each other; and
an electrode including a first electrode (203) and a second electrode (other elements 203 shown in Figs 2, 6) disposed on both sides of the hybrid waveguide;
wherein the electro-optical modulator further comprises coupling ends (sections of 201), extending from both ends of the hybrid waveguide, for optical coupling, with at least one of these coupling ends including a tapered structure (shown in Figs 2, 5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the coupling parts of WO1 with the electro-optical modulator structure of CN1. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for connection of the modulator to optical devices for inputting an optical signal and receiving a signal modulated by the modulator.
Regarding Claim 21, CN1 further describes:
wherein the nonlinear optical material layer comprises a lithium niobate layer or a lithium tantalate layer (see Page 6 Paragraph 4); and/or
wherein the silicon layer comprises a silicon nitride layer (see Page 6 Paragraph 7-Page 7 Paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 22, CN1 further describes:
the vertical projection of the silicon layer in the hybrid waveguide is within the vertical projection range of the nonlinear optical material layer (see Figs 1, 4i).
Regarding Claim 29, WO1 further describes:
at least two hybrid waveguides, at least one beam splitter, and at least one beam combiner (shown in Figs 2, 5);
wherein the output end of the beam splitter is connected to the coupling end at the input side of the corresponding hybrid waveguide via a first connecting waveguide (see Figs 2, 5), and
wherein the input end of the beam combiner is connected to the coupling end at the output side of the corresponding hybrid waveguide via a second connecting waveguide (see Figs 2, 5).
Claim 30 describes a method substantially embodied by the above-discussed device of Claim 20. Therefore, Claim 30 is rejected in view of CN1 and WO1 for substantially the same reasoning.
Claim 32 describes a method substantially embodied by the above-discussed device of Claim 21. Therefore, Claim 32 is rejected in view of CN1 and WO1 for substantially the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 35, CN1 further describes:
the conductive wiring structures comprise conductive structures with through-substrate vias (206).
Regarding Claim 36, neither CN1 nor WO1 describe:
forming bonding structures on at least one surface of the obtained electro-optical modulator for bonding with additional components.
However, the use of bonding structures on surfaces of electro-optical components for bonding with additional components is well-known in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such bonding structures with the obvious modulator in view of CN1 and WO1. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for connection to external components, such as the light source (101) or driving device (102) of WO1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-28 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.
Claims 31, and 33-34 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 23 describes:
a nonlinear optical material layer in a deformed section extending from a nonlinear optical material layer in a base section and gradually decreasing in size away from the base section, while a silicon layer in the deformed section extends from a silicon layer in the base section and remains unchanged in size.
Claim 24 describes:
a silicon layer in an intermediate section comprising a silicon layer extending from a deformed section and a silicon layer extending from a base section, with the silicon layer extending from the deformed section positioned above the silicon layer extending from the base section, and
nonlinear optical material layer in the deformed section extending from a nonlinear optical material layer in the intermediate section and gradually decreasing in size away from the intermediate section.
Claim 31 describes:
the hybrid waveguide comprising a first hybrid waveguide formed by stacking a monocrystalline silicon layer over a barium titanate layer.
Claim 33 describes
forming a first element using a front-end-of-line process, wherein the first element includes the silicon layer;
performing a thinning treatment on a side of the first element adjacent to the silicon layer; and
forming conductive wiring structures on both sides of the region corresponding to the silicon layer in the thinned first element to obtain the first component.
Claim 34 describes
forming a nonlinear optical material layer on a wafer;
removing the nonlinear optical material from areas outside of a predetermined region, with a nonlinear optical material layer in the predetermined region retained, thereby obtaining a second element, wherein the predetermined region corresponds to the area for overlap with the silicon layer;
depositing a silicon dioxide layer further on top of the second element to obtain a third element; and
forming conductive wiring structures on both sides of the region corresponding to the retained nonlinear optical material layer in the third element to obtain the second component.
These limitations represent subject matter not described or reasonably suggested, in conjunction with the further limitations of the present claims, by the prior art of record.
Claim 25 depends from Claim 23 and therefore contain at least the same allowable subject matter.
Claims 26-28 depend from Claim 24 and therefore contain at least the same allowable subject matter
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights