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 filed 12/18/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, and aside from the lined-out element the information referred to therein has been considered.
Foreign patent document 1 (Grojo et al) does not have a submitted legible copy.
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 9-10, 14-15, 19, 21 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.
Claims 9-10 and 14-15 recite the term “about” which is a relative term that renders the claims indefinite. The term is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, examiner disregards the term.
Claims 9-10 and 14-15 recite the terms “preferably” and “most preferably” which render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d) “Descriptions of examples of preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims.” For purposes of examination, examiner reads the claims as not comprising the indefinite limitations and has removed such limitations from the body of the rejection. For example, claim 14 is read as “The system of claim 13 wherein the corrective laser apparatus includes a laser source generating the corrective laser beam, the central wavelength ranging between 1.0 μm and 20 μm.”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "said detector" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 19 depends upon claim 13 and “a detector” appears in claim 18. For purposes of examination, examiner reads claim 19 as depending upon claim 18, similar to claim 6 depends upon claims 5 and 4.
Claim 21 recites the limitations "a probing laser beam" in line 7 and “the corrective laser beam” in line 9. This renders the claim indefinite as it is impossible to tell if the claim refers to two laser beams (as there are two differently-named beams in the claim), or one (as indicated by the specification). The specification paragraph 0065 recites “corrective laser beam 116” and paragraph 0094 recites “probing laser beam 116”, and the Figures only show a single laser beam (i.e. Figures 1, 3B, 7A-B, 8, 10 have a single element 116). For purposes of examination, examiner reads “a probing laser beam” as “a corrective laser beam”.
If this is not the applicant’s intent, any amendment to the claim should address the potential antecedent basis issue of “the corrective laser beam”, as there is no prior introduction of “a corrective laser beam”.
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 1-3, 9-11, 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouta et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20010021293) in view of Grojo et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20190265412), the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “KG”.
As to claim 13, Kouta teaches a system for modifying a photonic chip having a semiconductor waveguide (Abstract “irradiating ultra short pulse laser rays … to at least one of a core section and a clad section of an optical wave-guide device to modify a refractive index of the core section and the clad section”), the semiconductor waveguide having a bandgap wavelength (see paragraphs 0046-0047, 0080), the system comprising:
a corrective laser apparatus (Figure 10, paragraph 0149 “pulse laser apparatus section 40”) configured for directing a focal point of a corrective laser beam (Figure 1, paragraph 0066 “Ultra short pulse laser rays 13 … emitted from a Ti-sapphire laser were focused on the core section 12 … by using an objective lens 14) within a portion of the photonic chip being one of proximate to and within the semiconductor waveguide (Figure 1, paragraph 0064 “an embedded optical wave-guide device includes a core section 12 of an optical wave-guide doped with GeO.sub.2 in a clad portion on a silica glass substrate 11”),
the corrective laser beam having a central wavelength greater than the bandgap wavelength of the semiconductor waveguide (paragraph 0046 “The energy of the laser rays irradiated by using the ultra short pulse laser having the pulse width of 30 pico-seconds for changing the refractive index of the optical wave-guide is required to be smaller than the band-gap energy of the clad material for preventing the absorption of the laser rays into the clad material.” and as photon energy and wavelength have an inverse relationship this reads on the claimed limitation),
said directing modifying an effective refractive index of the semiconductor waveguide (paragraph 0066 “thereby modifying the refractive index”).
While Kouta teaches measuring the section after modifying the refractive index (paragraph 0122 “The Raman spectrum of the core section of which the refractive index was modified in Example 1 was measured by microscope analysis.”), Kouta does not teach a photonic chip testing apparatus performing a testing routine on the semiconductor waveguide including determining a parameter indicative of a performance of the semiconductor waveguide; and a controller communicatively coupled to the corrective laser apparatus and to the photonic chip testing apparatus, the controller having a processor and a memory having stored thereon instructions that when executed by the processor perform the steps of: comparing said parameter to a reference parameter associated with a reference photonic chip; and upon determining that said parameter mismatches the reference parameter, repeating said directing and said testing routine until said parameter matches the reference parameter within a given tolerance.
However, it is known in the art as taught by Grojo. Grojo teaches monitoring a process of adjusting the refractive index of a semiconductor (Abstract “a control unit (60) for controlling the number of pulses received per pattern point as a function of said measurement of the real part of the refractive index so as to obtain, at each pattern point, a progressive modification of the real part of the refractive index of the material”) including
a photonic chip testing apparatus performing a testing routine on the semiconductor waveguide including determining a parameter indicative of a performance of the semiconductor waveguide (Figure 1A, paragraph 0075 “device 30 for measuring the real part of the refractive index in the sample”); and
a controller communicatively coupled to the corrective laser apparatus and to the photonic chip testing apparatus (Figure 1A, paragraph 0075 “control unit 60”), the controller performing the steps of:
comparing said parameter to a reference parameter associated with a reference photonic chip; and upon determining that said parameter mismatches the reference parameter, repeating said directing and said testing routine until said parameter matches the reference parameter within a given tolerance (paragraphs 0056-0057 “a device for measuring the real part of the refractive index of the sample at each point of the pattern; a unit for controlling the number of pulses received per pattern point, or “number of shots”, according to said measurement of the real part of the refractive index so as to obtain, at each pattern point, a progressive modification of the real part of the refractive index of the material until a relative variation of the real part of the refractive index greater than 10.sup.−3 in absolute value.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a photonic chip testing apparatus performing a testing routine on the semiconductor waveguide including determining a parameter indicative of a performance of the semiconductor waveguide; and a controller communicatively coupled to the corrective laser apparatus and to the photonic chip testing apparatus, the controller performing the steps of: comparing said parameter to a reference parameter associated with a reference photonic chip; and upon determining that said parameter mismatches the reference parameter, repeating said directing and said testing routine until said parameter matches the reference parameter within a given tolerance, in order to automatically reach a desired value.
While Grojo does not explicitly teach the controller has a processor and a memory having stored thereon instructions, Grojo teaches laser pulses in the pico- and nano-second ranges (paragraph 0054) and several of the Figures (e.g. Figure 1C) show computer-generated graphs and it is not reasonable for this to happen without computer support. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use a computer processor with a memory storing instructions, in order to take advantage of their rapid data acquisition and processing capabilities.
As to claim 14, KG teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 13, in addition Kouta teaches the corrective laser apparatus includes a laser source generating the corrective laser beam, the central wavelength ranging between 1.0 μm and 20 μm (paragraph 0136 “The wavelength in the experiment was 1550 nm at the longest”).
As to claim 15, KG teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 13, in addition Kouta teaches the corrective laser apparatus includes a laser source generating laser pulses having a time duration ranging between 10 fs and 1000 ns (paragraph 0135 “The pulse width in the experiment was 50 femto-seconds at the lowest”).
As to claim 16, KG teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 13, in addition Grojo teaches the corrective laser apparatus has a fiber laser source (paragraph 0079 “the pulsed laser source 21 can include any type of long pulse laser (>ps) (e.g. OPO, fibre laser, etc.)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the corrective laser apparatus have a fiber laser source, in order to take advantage of their high precision and low maintenance.
As to claim 17, KG teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 13, in addition Kouta teaches a multi-axis movement stage having a support area on which the photonic chip is received, the multi-axis movement stage moving the photonic chip during said directing (paragraph 0019 “a stage section for holding and moving the optical wave-guide device in "x", "y" and "z" directions”).
As to claim 1, the method would flow from claim 13.
As to claim 2, the method would flow from claim 17
As to claim 3, the method would flow from claim 17, in addition Kouta teaches said moving includes delivering a laser pulse at each of a plurality of spaced apart points distributed along the path (Figure 1, paragraph 0066 “the scanning was conducted along the core section 12 by moving the substrate for the geometric length ".DELTA.l" at a rate of 1 mm/s., thereby modifying the refractive index”).
As to claim 9, the method would flow from claim 14.
As to claim 10, the method would flow from claim 15.
As to claim 11, KG teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Kouta teaches the semiconductor waveguide is positioned relative to a substrate, the photonic chip further having a cladding layer covering a top surface of the substrate and the semiconductor waveguide, said directing including directing the focal point of the corrective laser beam through at least one of the cladding layer and the substrate (paragraph 0018 “ irradiating ultra short pulse laser rays having a pulse width not more than 30 pico-seconds to at least one of a core section and a clad section of an optical wave-guide device to modify a refractive index of the core section and the clad section.”).
Claims 4-8, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KG, and further in view of Akiyama et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20060088265) and in view of Mansouri Rad et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20230229026).
As to claim 18, KG teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 13, with the exception of said photonic chip testing apparatus includes a test optical source guiding a test optical signal into and along the semiconductor waveguide, and a detector detecting an output signal resulting from said guiding, the controller determining the parameter based on said output signal. However, it is known in the art as taught by Akiyama. Akiyama teaches a clad waveguide (Abstract “A waveguide structure includes a core structure that has low index materials. A photonic crystal cladding structure utilized in guiding optical modes in the core.”) and measuring a property of the waveguide (paragraph 0019 “The on-chip PC cladded waveguide loss is measured”) where the testing apparatus includes a test optical source guiding a test optical signal into and along the waveguide, and a detector detecting an output signal resulting from said guiding, the controller determining the parameter based on said output signal (paragraph 0019 “light from a tapered optical fiber is coupled into the waveguide 16, then the guided light emerging from the other end is focused with a lens and collected with a camera”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have said photonic chip testing apparatus include a test optical source guiding a test optical signal into and along the semiconductor waveguide, and a detector detecting an output signal resulting from said guiding, the controller determining the parameter based on said output signal, in order to monitor the overall waveguide, not just one part.
KG as modified by Akiyama above does not teach the concept of ‘measure the entire waveguide and use that to adjust the process’, as Grojo teaches measuring the region being modified (see Figure 1A where device 30 is aimed at the part of the waveguide being modified, not the waveguide as a whole). However, the concept is taught by Mansouri Rad. Mansouri Rad teaches tuning an optical waveguide (paragraph 0016 “a controller adjusts the one or more CMOS impedance circuits based on one or more measurements indicative of optical communication performance”) comprising a loop of measuring an optical waveguide, making an adjustment and measuring again (paragraph 0016 “The controller may be configured to iteratively search for an adequate operating condition of the optical communication device by repeatedly taking said measurements and adjusting the one or more CMOS impedance circuits based on said measurements. The measurements may be obtained by local monitoring of an output of the optical communication device.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to measure the entire waveguide, not just the one piece you’re working on, in order to better end up with a waveguide possessing the properties you want.
As to claim 19, KG in view of Akiyama in view of Mansouri Rad teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 18[13], in addition Akiyama teaches said detector is a photodiode optically coupled to a first end of the semiconductor waveguide for detecting the output signal (paragraph 0019 “the guided light emerging from the other end is focused with a lens and collected with a camera” and in 2006 digital cameras (made up of photodiode arrays) were an obvious choice for obtaining cheap, high-performance images). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have said detector is a photodiode optically coupled to a first end of the semiconductor waveguide for detecting the output signal, in order to more cheaply & easily analyze the light traveling through the waveguide.
As to claim 4, the method would flow from claim 18.
As to claim 5, the method would flow from claim 19.
As to claim 6, the method would flow from claim 19.
As to claim 7, KG in view of Akiyama teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 4, in addition Akiyama teaches said detecting includes measuring the output signal scattering away from the semiconductor waveguide during said guiding using a camera (paragraph 0019 “the guided light emerging from the other end is focused with a lens and collected with a camera”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have said detecting includes measuring the output signal scattering away from the semiconductor waveguide during said guiding using a camera, in order to more cheaply & easily analyze the light traveling through the waveguide.
As to claim 8, KG teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the parameter is at least one of an output wavelength, an output phase, an output amplitude, an output polarization, an output dispersion and an output loss. However, it is known in the art as taught by Akiyama. Akiyama teaches the parameter is at least one of an output wavelength, an output phase, an output amplitude, an output polarization, an output dispersion and an output loss (paragraph 0019 “The on-chip PC cladded waveguide loss is measured”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the parameter is at least one of an output wavelength, an output phase, an output amplitude, an output polarization, an output dispersion and an output loss, in order to better calculate accurate results from the measurements.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KG, and further in view of Yan et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20030161579).
As to claim 12, KC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the photonic chip has a plurality of semiconductor waveguides each having the bandgap wavelength. However, it is known in the art as taught by Yan. Yan teaches optimizing optical waveguides (Abstract “A method of optimizing a filter response of an arrayed waveguide grating.” and paragraph 0015 “Adjusting a respective refractive index of the cores is used to adjust optical path length.”, similar to how Kouta teaches changing the refractive index (Abstract)), wherein the photonic chip (Figure 2, paragraph 0026 “silicon substrate 213”) has a plurality of semiconductor waveguides each having the bandgap wavelength (Figure 2, paragraph 0026 “cores 210a and 210b”), the method further comprising performing said directing and said testing routine with respect to each one of the plurality of semiconductor waveguides until a plurality of parameters pertaining to the plurality of semiconductor waveguides match a respective reference parameter within a given tolerance (paragraph 0031 “Once the phase error, or optical pathlength error, is measured, a respective optical path length of the cores (e.g., cores 210a-b) is adjusted in accordance with the respective phase error of the cores. Optical path length is adjusted by adjusting a respective refractive index of the cores. The adjustment of the optical path length thereby optimizes a filter response of the AWG.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the photonic chip have a plurality of semiconductor waveguides each having the bandgap wavelength, the method further comprising performing said directing and said testing routine with respect to each one of the plurality of semiconductor waveguides until a plurality of parameters pertaining to the plurality of semiconductor waveguides match a respective reference parameter within a given tolerance, in order to optimize a more complex optical waveguide.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 21, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method of testing a photonic chip having a plurality of semiconductor components optically coupled to the semiconductor waveguide, the method comprising: while performing a testing routine on the semiconductor waveguide, the testing routine including guiding a test optical signal into and along the semiconductor waveguide, detecting an output signal resulting from said guiding and monitoring an output signal based on said output signal, directing a focal point of a corrective [probing] laser beam within a portion of the photonic chip being one of proximate to and within one of the plurality of semiconductor components, the corrective laser beam having a central wavelength greater than the bandgap wavelength of the semiconductor components, said directing modifying an effective refractive index of the portion of the one of the semiconductor components, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kouta (US 20010021293) teaches modifying a photonic chip by modifying the refractive index of the waveguide (Abstract, paragraph 0066) and Grojo (US 20190265412) teaches monitoring the refractive index of a location on a waveguide while the waveguide is being modified (Figure 1A, paragraphs 0056-0057), but neither teaches modifying an optical component while monitoring light that is going through the waveguide. Yan (US 20030161579) teaches modifying multiple waveguides that make up a waveguide grating (Abstract, paragraph 0015), but does not teach modifying optical components that are not part of the waveguide while also monitoring light going through the waveguide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 EST.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights