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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 7, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yu et al (US 2023/0367144 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses (Figs. 1A and 3; Abstract; para. 0041 – 0045 and 0048) a method of forming an optical device 100, the method comprising:
forming a waveguide 106,110 over a substrate 108 (para. 0041);
depositing a meta-atom material (high-index material) over the waveguide 106,110; and
patterning the meta-atom material into a grating coupler 102 (shown in Fig. 1a and corresponding to 3012 in Fig. 3b).
Regarding claim 15, Yu discloses (Fig. 1A and 3; Abstract; para. 0041 – 0045 and 0048) an optical device 100 comprising:
a waveguide 106,110; and
a grating coupler 102 located over the waveguide 106,110 (as seen in the cross-sectional view of Fig. 3b), the grating coupler comprising a meta-atom material (shaped as meta-atoms 220 in Fig. 1a and corresponding to 3012 in Fig. 8; para. 0041).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Yu teaches that the meta-atom material can comprise titanium oxide (“In certain exemplary embodiments, the meta-atoms are dielectric pillars etched in the high refractive index layer. In certain exemplary embodiments, the high refractive index layer comprises … titanium dioxide” at para. 0010).
Regarding claims 3 and 20, Yu teaches that the deposition of the meta-atom material comprises depositing multiple layers (“In certain exemplary embodiments, the high refractive index layer comprises one or more layers and the leaky-wave metasurface is defined within one or more of these layers” at para. 0009).
Regarding claim 7, Yu teaches that (Figs. 1b, 2a, 2d; para. 0044 and 00473) the grating coupler comprises multiple zones, each zone having meta-atom material with a different characteristic (different orientation of an elliptical meta-atom; “A “nonlocal metasurface” has been made based on the following principles, where a spatially varying perturbation strength and orientation angle locally can control the amplitude and polarization angle of the coupled free-space wavefront” at para. 0044, emphasis added).
Claims 1, 3, 5, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Metasurface-Dressed Two-Dimensional on-Chip Waveguide for Free-Space Light Field Manipulation” by Ding et al, ACS Photonics, vol. 9, pp. 398−404, 2022 (hereinafter Ding).
Regarding claim 1, Ding describes (Fig. 1; Abstract; pp. 398 – 399) a method of forming an optical device, the method comprising:
forming a waveguide (comprising a single-mode portion and a slab portion) over a substrate;
depositing a meta-atom material over the waveguide; and
patterning the meta-atom material into a grating coupler.
Regarding claim 15, Ding describes (Fig. 1; Abstract; pp. 398 – 399) an optical device comprising:
a waveguide (comprising a single-mode portion and a slab portion); and
a grating coupler located over the waveguide, the grating coupler comprising a meta-atom material.
Regarding claims 3, 5, and 20, Ding describes (para. bridging columns on p. 399) that the grating coupler comprises multiple (three) layers comprising a metal (Au) and a semiconductor material (silicon).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Yu states that “As used herein, the term “meta-units” refers to artificially created structures that exhibit unique electromagnetic properties due to their physical characteristics. Meta-units can be made up of subwavelength metallic or dielectric materials, sculptured into a precise geometric shape” (para. 0037), that “In certain exemplary embodiments, the high refractive index layer comprises one or more layers and the leaky-wave metasurface is defined within one or more of these layers” (para. 0009), and that “the meta-atoms are dielectric pillars etched in the high refractive index layer. In certain exemplary embodiments, the high refractive index layer comprises silicon, silicon nitride, silicon-rich silicon nitride, titanium dioxide” (para. 0010, emphasis added).
Hence, Yu at the very least renders obvious an embodiment wherein the multiple layers comprise at least one metal (as taught at para. 0037) in one layer and at least one oxide (titanium dioxide) in another layer. Yu at the very least renders obvious another embodiment wherein the multiple layers comprise at least one metal (as taught at para. 0037) in one layer and at least one semiconductor material (silicon) in another layer.
Claims 6 and 17 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of “Recent advanced in planar optics: from plasmonic to dielectric metasurfaces” by Genevet et al, Optica, vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 139, 2017 (hereinafter Genevet).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Yu uses elliptically-shaped meta-atoms in order to convert a waveguide mode into any desired distribution of output light output into free space by the grating coupler (para. 0011 – 0013), including complex asymmetric spatial distributions. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that circularly-shaped meta-atoms (which is a particular case of an elliptical shape) may be used for simpler distributors/shapes of output light.
While Yu illustrates such choice of shape in Fig. 1b (leftmost fragment) but does not expressly name it as circular. However, Genevet discloses (Figs. 2 and 4; Abstract) a meta-surface formed by meta-atoms and illustrates a variety of their shapes, including a circular shape in Figs. 2b and 4 (as named in its caption). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the meta-atoms in Yu can have a circular shape as a particular design/shape choice that is generally considered by Yu and expressly named by Genevet. It is also noted that it has been further held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 17, the Yu – Genevet combination considers that the meta-atom material can comprise amorphous silicon (caption of Fig. 4 of Genevet). Amorphous silicon would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a suitable/workable material choice that provides the desired property of a high refractive index. It is also noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 19, the Yu – Genevet combination considers that the meta-atom material can have an “L”-shape (Figs. 2d and 2h of Genevet).
Claims 8, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Liao et al (US 2022/0308284 A1).
Regarding claim 8, while Yu does not exemplify a variety of application areas of the disclosed grating coupler, Liao discloses (Fig. 2J; Abstract; para. 0041) an optoelectronic package/module comprising a grating coupler 132. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the grating coupler of Yu can be comprised in the optoelectronic package/module of Liao, as a suitable application area, in order to enable optical coupling between an integrated optical waveguide and a free-space optical beam.
The Yu – Liao combination considers a method of forming an optical device, the method comprising:
forming first optical components, the first optical components comprising a first waveguide (106,110 in Fig. 1a of Yu));
forming a grating coupler 102 over the first waveguide 106,110, the grating coupler comprising a meta-atom material 220;
forming a bonding layer 103,210 (shown in Fig. 2J of Liao; para. 0041) over the grating coupler 132; and
bonding a semiconductor device 102 (a semiconductor layer with a metasurface 108; para. 0021 and 0024 of Liao) to the bonding layer 103,210.
Regarding claims 9, 11, and 12, the Yu – Liao combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations, as detailed above for claims 2 – 5.
Claims 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Liao, and further in view of Genevet.
Regarding claims 10 and 13, the teachings of Yu, Liao, and Genevet combine (see the arguments and motivation for combining, as provided above for claims 1 and 6) to teach expressly or render obvious all of the recited limitations, as detailed above for claims 17 and 19 respectively.
Regarding claim 14, the Yu – Liao – Genevet combination considers that the grating coupler can have a cylindrical shape (Figs. 2b and 4 of Genevet).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0050352 A1
US 2025/0020950 A1
US 2023/0296838 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/ROBERT TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
