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 10/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 12, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentine et al. (US 10,788,689 B1 Hereinafter Lentine) in view of Dougherty et al. (US 2012/0230630 A1 Hereinafter Dougherty).
Regarding claim 1, Lentine teaches an electro-optical (EO) modulator, comprising:
a substrate (104, FIG. 1, col. 4, lines 60-65);
a modulation unit (102 and 114, FIG. 1, col. 4, lines 60-65, and col. 5, lines 18-22) that comprises an EO modulation layer (108, FIG. 1, col. 4, lines 65-67) and a modulation zone waveguide (114, FIG. 1, col. 5, lines 18-22) that is optically coupled to the EO modulation layer (108 and 114, FIG. 1, col. 4, lines 65-67, and col. 5, lines 18-22);
radio-frequency electrodes (140, 142, and 144, FIG. 2, col. 6, lines 59-62) that are electromagnetically coupled to the EO modulation layer (108, FIG. 1, col. 4, lines 65-67, and FIG. 2, col. 7, lines 5-15);
an input waveguide (116.1, FIG. 3, col. 7, lines 48-52) that is configured to guide light towards the modulation unit (102 and 114, FIG. 1, col. 4, lines 60-65, and col. 5, lines 18-22);
and
an output waveguide (116.2, FIG. 3, col. 7, lines 52-55) that is configured to receive modulated light from the modulation unit (102 and 114, FIG. 1, col. 4, lines 60-65, and col. 5, lines 18-22).
Lentine fails to teach the modulation zone waveguide partially surrounded by one or more gaps. Solid oxide cladding is not that gap. Spacing between the electrodes is not that gap.
Dougherty teaches a high-confinement strip (10, FIG. 8, paragraph 0058) on lithium niobate (20, FIG. 8, paragraph 0058) that is partially surrounded by one or more gaps (10, FIG. 8, paragraph 0059), with more of the strip surrounded by air (10, FIG. 8, paragraph 0059), while a tail of the mode remains in the electro-optic substrate (20, FIG. 8, paragraph 0058 and paragraph 0059). Greater confinement leaves less of the mode in the electro-optic material. Dougherty states that tradeoff at paragraph 0071.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included the air-exposed gaps of Dougherty to the device of Lentine, in order to increase confinement of the modulation zone waveguide while retaining a mode tail in the electro-optic layer.
Regarding claim 2, Lentine teaches the EO modulator according to claim 1.
Dougherty teaches wherein a gap (10, FIG. 8, paragraph 0059) of the one or more gaps is at least partially filled with one or more gases (10, FIG. 8, paragraph 0059). Air is a gas. A second distinct gas is not required.
Regarding claim 3, Lentine teaches the EO modulator according to claim 1.
Dougherty teaches wherein a gap (10, FIG. 8, paragraph 0059) of the one or more gaps is at least partially filled with air (10, FIG. 8, paragraph 0059).
Regarding claim 7, Lentine teaches the EO modulation layer (108, FIG. 1, col. 5, lines 5-10) is a Lithium Niobate (LN) layer (108, FIG. 1, col. 5, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 8, Lentine teaches the modulation zone waveguide (114, FIG. 1, col. 5, lines 18-22) is made of Silicon nitride (SiN) (114, FIG. 1, col. 5, lines 18-22).
Regarding claim 9, Lentine teaches the modulation zone waveguide (114, FIG. 1, col. 5, lines 23-28) is made of silicon (114, FIG. 1, col. 5, lines 23-28).
Regarding claim 12, Lentine teaches the EO modulator according to claim 1.
Dougherty teaches wherein the modulation zone waveguide comprises sidewalls (10, FIG. 8, paragraph 0059) that are exposed to the one or more gaps (10, FIG. 8, paragraph 0059).
Regarding claim 14, Lentine teaches an isolation layer (110, FIG. 1, col. 5, lines 5-10) and a first handle (112, FIG. 1, col. 5, lines 5-10) that are positioned above the EO modulation layer (108, FIG. 1, col. 5, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 15, Lentine teaches the modulation unit is manufactured by a manufacturing process that comprises:
obtaining a first object (102, Fig. 1) that comprises the EO modulation layer;
obtaining a second object (114, Fig. 1) that comprises the modulation zone waveguide;
inserting the second object to a recess formed within the first object (Fig. 1); and
attaching the first object to the second object (they are assembled into one item and therefore considered to be attached).
Regarding claim 16, Lentine teaches the EO modulator according to claim 1, comprising an isolation base (104 and 106, FIG. 1, col. 4, lines 60-67) that supports the modulation zone waveguide (114, FIG. 1, col. 5, lines 18-22) and the radio-frequency electrodes (140, 142, and 144, FIG. 2, col. 6, lines 59-62).
Regarding claim 17, Lentine teaches the EO modulator according to claim 1, wherein the modulation unit (114.1, FIG. 3, col. 7, lines 48-52), the radio-frequency electrodes (140, 142, and 144, FIG. 2, col. 6, lines 59-62), the an input waveguide (116.1, FIG. 3, col. 7, lines 48-52) and the an output waveguide (116.2, FIG. 3, col. 7, lines 52-55) belong to a first arm (114.1, 116.1, and 116.2, FIG. 3, col. 5, lines 45-52, and col. 7, lines 48-55) of a Mach-Zehnder Modulator (MZM) (114.1, 116.1, and 116.2, FIG. 3, col. 5, lines 45-52, and col. 7, lines 48-55).
Regarding claim 18, Lentine teaches the EO modulator according to claim 1, the modulation zone waveguide can be made of Silicon nitride (SiN) (114, FIG. 1, col. 5, lines 18-22) or silicon (114, FIG. 1, col. 5, lines 23-28). Dougherty teaches silicon rich nitride (10, FIG. 4, paragraph 0056). The claim does not require all three materials.
Regarding claim 19, Lentine teaches the EO modulator according to claim 17, comprising another modulation unit (114.2, FIG. 3, col. 7, lines 48-55), others radio-frequency electrodes (140, 142, and 144, FIG. 2, col. 6, lines 59-62), another input waveguide (116.3, FIG. 3, col. 7, lines 53-55) and another output waveguide (116.4, FIG. 3, col. 7, lines 55-57) that belong to a second arm (114.2, 116.3, and 116.4, FIG. 3, col. 7, lines 48-57) of the MZM (114.2, 116.3, and 116.4, FIG. 3, col. 7, lines 48-57).
Regarding claim 20, Lentine teaches a method for electro-optical (EO) modulation, the method comprising:
guiding, by at least an input waveguide (116.1, FIG. 3, col. 7, lines 48-52) of an EO modulator, light towards a modulation unit (102 and 114, FIG. 1, col. 4, lines 60-65, and col. 5, lines 18-22) of the EO modulator, the modulation unit comprises an EO modulation layer (108, FIG. 1, col. 4, lines 65-67) and a modulation zone waveguide (114, FIG. 1, col. 5, lines 18-22) that is optically coupled to the EO modulation layer (108 and 114, FIG. 1, col. 4, lines 65-67, and col. 5, lines 18-22);
modulating the light, by the modulation unit (102 and 114, FIG. 1, col. 4, lines 60-65, and col. 5, lines 18-22), under a control of radio-frequency electrodes (140, 142, and 144, FIG. 2, col. 6, lines 59-62) that are electromagnetically coupled to the EO modulation layer (108, FIG. 1, col. 4, lines 65-67, and FIG. 2, col. 7, lines 5-15), to provide modulated light; and
outputting, by at least an output waveguide (116.2, FIG. 3, col. 7, lines 52-55) of the EO modulator, the modulated light.
Lentine fails to teach the modulation zone waveguide partially surrounded by one or more gaps.
Dougherty teaches a strip (10, FIG. 8, paragraph 0059) on lithium niobate (20, FIG. 8, paragraph 0059) that is partially surrounded by one or more gaps (10, FIG. 8, paragraph 0059), with more of the strip surrounded by air (10, FIG. 8, paragraph 0059).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included the air-exposed gaps of Dougherty to the device of Lentine, in order to increase confinement of the modulation zone waveguide while retaining a mode tail in the electro-optic layer.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentine in view of Dougherty as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kumar (US 11,300,732 B2 Hereinafter Kumar).
Regarding claim 4, Lentine and Dougherty fail to teach wherein a gap of the one or more gaps is a vacuumed gap. Air surrounding the strip is not a vacuum. An open trench is not treated as a vacuum.
Kumar teaches wherein a gap (243 or 343, FIG. 3, col. 8, lines 45-55) of the one or more gaps is a vacuumed gap (243 or 343, FIG. 3, col. 8, lines 45-55). The etched region (243 or 343, FIG. 3, col. 8, lines 45-55) may be left empty, filled with air or vacuum.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included the vacuum of Kumar to the device of Lentine, in order to use that expressly taught empty-gap alternative while the vacuum is maintained. This is not an anticipation.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 10, 11, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentine in view of Dougherty as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, and further in view of Betts (US 6,310,700 B1 Hereinafter Betts).
Regarding claim 5, Lentine and Dougherty fail to teach one or more light barriers that are located between the modulation zone waveguide and the radio-frequency electrodes.
Betts teaches one or more light barriers (105, FIG. 3, col. 9, lines 52-59) that are located between the modulation zone waveguide (200, FIG. 3, col. 9, lines 52-59) and the radio-frequency electrodes (350B, FIG. 3, col. 9, lines 52-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included the light barriers of Betts to the device of Lentine, in order to reduce absorption of guided light by the radio-frequency electrodes.
Regarding claim 6, Lentine teaches the EO modulator according to claim 1, and radio frequency electrode diffusion barrier layers (140, 142, and 144, FIG. 1, col. 6, lines 16-18, and FIG. 2, col. 6, lines 59-62). That diffusion barrier is a Ti/TiN layer in the electrode metallization. It is not the light barrier.
Lentine fails to teach one or more light barriers that are located between the modulation zone waveguide and the radio frequency electrode diffusion barrier layers.
Betts teaches one or more light barriers (105, FIG. 3, col. 9, lines 52-59) on the waveguide side of the electrode structure (350B, FIG. 3, col. 9, lines 52-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included the optical buffer of Betts to the device of Lentine, in order to place the buffer on the waveguide side of the diffusion barrier, between the guide and the electrode metal, and suppress absorption by the electrode stack while retaining the diffusion barrier.
Regarding claim 10, Lentine teaches the EO modulator according to claim 1.
Betts teaches comprising one or more light barriers (105, FIG. 3, col. 9, lines 52-59) that are configured to reduce the absorption of light by the EO modulator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included the light barriers of Betts to the device of Lentine, in order to reduce the absorption of the light by the EO modulator.
Regarding claim 11, Lentine fails to teach the one or more light barriers are glued to the radio-frequency electrodes.
The Examiner takes official notice in pointing out that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the date of filing to have had the light barriers glued to the radio-frequency electrodes given that gluing is a well known alternative connection method of connecting two elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included the light barriers of Betts being glued to the radio-frequency electrodes of Lentine, in order to provide a well known alternative connection method.
Regarding claim 21, Lentine and Dougherty fail to teach reducing an absorption, within the EO modulator of at least one of the light and the modulated light, by one or more light barriers of the EO modulator.
Betts teaches reducing an absorption, within the EO modulator of at least one of the light and the modulated light, by one or more light barriers (105, FIG. 3, col. 9, lines 52-59) of the EO modulator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included the light barriers of Betts to the device of Lentine, in order to reduce absorption of the guided light and the modulated light.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentine in view of Dougherty as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shuai et al. (CN 112987346 A Hereinafter Shuai). No US family member was identified.
Regarding claim 13, Lentine teaches the EO modulator according to claim 1, including a silicon nitride modulation zone waveguide (114, FIG. 1, col. 5, lines 18-22) and a separate lithium niobate film (108, FIG. 1, col. 5, lines 5-10).
Lentine fails to teach a bottom of the modulation zone waveguide supported by an oxide element that is higher than a bottom of a gap.
Shuai teaches an oxide element (002, FIG. 1, paragraph 0011 and paragraphs 0025) that is higher than a bottom of a gap (003, FIG. 1, paragraphs 0028). The oxide element is a silicon dioxide buried support remaining between cavities. The ridge in that figure is part of the lithium niobate film. It is not the silicon nitride guide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included the elevated silicon-dioxide support of Shuai to the device of Lentine, in order to support the silicon nitride guide on a retained oxide land while the cavity boundary is moved so the adjacent gap extends to a lower floor. The lithium niobate film remains the separate electro-optic layer.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mule' et al. (US 2002/0122648 A1) teaches an air-gap cladding formed by removing sacrificial material. It is an alternative gap reference and is not combined with Dougherty. Wang et al. (US 2021/0255489 A1) teaches a lithium niobate ridge and electrodes. A remaining slab of the same film is not used here as both the modulation zone waveguide and the EO modulation layer. Bowers (US 2007/0170417 A1) teaches a bonded hybrid guide with side gaps and a silicon waveguide. Dol et al. (US 2002/0141679 A1) teaches a buffer that suppresses absorption by electrodes. It is not stacked with Betts. Kannan et al. (US 2020/0116930 A1) teaches air or vacuum in a package recess. It is not the vacuum reference used for claim 4. Cho et al. (US 4,652,290) teaches an oxide pedestal under a guided region. It is not the elevated-support reference used for claim 13. Ji et al. (US 2021/0215878 A1) teaches a recess in a silicon photonic chip that receives a lithium niobate chip. That recess is in the opposite object from claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T EIDE whose telephone number is (571)272-7405. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at (571)272-7044. 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.
/ERIC T EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
