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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the application filed on 05/06/2025. Applicant has submitted Claims 1-20 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1-20 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority to US PRO 63648240 filed 05/16/2024.
Claim Interpretation
Generally: The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner notes that, relating to the selection of specific lengths, widths, and indexes, that Examiner interprets these broadly and relies on routine optimization as part of the rejections. Examiner would recommend and appreciate in any response from Applicant, more detail as to why specific sizes are important to the operation of the claimed invention and why PHOSITA would not necessarily arrive at such specifics through routine optimization.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 13, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hung (US 20230228944 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Hung discloses:
A Mach-Zender Interferometer (MZI) (Hung, Abstract, “A waveguide division multiplexer and demultiplexer includes a first-stage Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI) and two second-stage MZIs”) comprising:
a first arm comprising (Hung, FIG. 4A, [0046], waveguide arm 322A): one or more first delay sections (Hung, FIG. 4A, [0046], waveguide arm 322A) comprising one or more first periodically segmented waveguides of a first periodicity (Hung, FIG. 1, [0041], In order to ensure that the wavelength division multiplexer and demultiplexer 100 achieve the goal, the phase delayed waveguides of the second-stage MZI structures S12A and S12B in the first waveguide structure 110 respectively have relative optical path phase shifts of 0 and π, i.e. the phase delayed waveguides respectively have relative waveguide length differences of 0 and λ/2n, where λ is the optical wavelength, and n is the effective refractive index of the waveguide; the phase delayed waveguides of the two first-stage MZI structures S21 in the second waveguide structures 121 and 122 respectively have relative waveguide length differences of 0 and π/2, i.e. the phase delayed waveguides respectively have relative waveguide length differences of 0 and λ/4n, and the phase delayed waveguides of the second-stage MZI structures S22A and S22B in the second waveguide structure 121 and the second-stage MZI structures S22A and S22B in the second waveguide structure 122 respectively have relative optical phase shifts of 0, π, 3π/2 and π/2, i.e. the phase delayed waveguides respectively have relative waveguide length differences of 0, λ/2n, 3λ/4n and λ/4n, such that the output spectra are respectively aligned with the center wavelengths λ.sub.1, λ.sub.2, λ.sub.3 and λ.sub.4); and
a second arm comprising (Hung, FIG. 4A, [0046], waveguide arm 322B): one or more second delay sections (Hung, FIG. 4A, [0046], waveguide arm 322B) comprising one or more second periodically segmented waveguides of a second periodicity, different from the first periodicity (Hung, FIG. 1, [0041], In order to ensure that the wavelength division multiplexer and demultiplexer 100 achieve the goal, the phase delayed waveguides of the second-stage MZI structures S12A and S12B in the first waveguide structure 110 respectively have relative optical path phase shifts of 0 and π, i.e. the phase delayed waveguides respectively have relative waveguide length differences of 0 and λ/2n, where λ is the optical wavelength, and n is the effective refractive index of the waveguide; the phase delayed waveguides of the two first-stage MZI structures S21 in the second waveguide structures 121 and 122 respectively have relative waveguide length differences of 0 and π/2, i.e. the phase delayed waveguides respectively have relative waveguide length differences of 0 and λ/4n, and the phase delayed waveguides of the second-stage MZI structures S22A and S22B in the second waveguide structure 121 and the second-stage MZI structures S22A and S22B in the second waveguide structure 122 respectively have relative optical phase shifts of 0, π, 3π/2 and π/2, i.e. the phase delayed waveguides respectively have relative waveguide length differences of 0, λ/2n, 3λ/4n and λ/4n, such that the output spectra are respectively aligned with the center wavelengths λ.sub.1, λ.sub.2, λ.sub.3 and λ.sub.4).
Regarding Claim 17, Hung discloses Claim 13, and Hung further discloses:
… wherein the first arm and the second arm comprise silicon (Hung, FIG. 1, [0038], “The first waveguide structure 110 and the second waveguide structures 121, 122 may be waveguide structures formed of silicon, silicon nitride or another material, and may be formed on the same substrate, e.g. a silicon-on-insulator (SOI) substrate or another suitable semiconductor substrate”)..
Regarding Claim 18, Hung discloses Claim 13, and Hung further discloses:
… wherein the first arm and the second arm comprise silicon nitride (Hung, FIG. 1, [0038], “The first waveguide structure 110 and the second waveguide structures 121, 122 may be waveguide structures formed of silicon, silicon nitride or another material, and may be formed on the same substrate, e.g. a silicon-on-insulator (SOI) substrate or another suitable semiconductor substrate”)..
Regarding Claim 20, Hung discloses Claim 13, and Hung further discloses:
… wherein the first arm and the second arm comprise optically coupled power couplers arranged as 2x2 directional couplers (Hung, FIG. 2A, optical couplers 212A, 214A, 216A, 218A).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (US 20220269974 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Hung discloses Claim 13,
… wherein:
the one or more first delay sections having a total first length and a first width (Hung, FIGl 4A, [0046], “Each of the protruding portions 322A2 and 322A3 has a length L.sub.1/2 and a width W.sub.1, each of the protruding portions 322B2 and 322B3 has a length L.sub.2/2 and a width W.sub.2, and each of the curved sections 322A1 and 322B1 has a width W”);
the one or more second delay sections having a total second length and a second width (Hung, FIGl 4A, [0046], “Each of the protruding portions 322A2 and 322A3 has a length L.sub.1/2 and a width W.sub.1, each of the protruding portions 322B2 and 322B3 has a length L.sub.2/2 and a width W.sub.2, and each of the curved sections 322A1 and 322B1 has a width W”),
wherein the total first length is longer than the total second length (Hung, FIG. 4B, showing L1 greater than L2), and the first width is less than the second width (Hung, FIG. 4B, showing W1 greater than W2), …
Hung discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the first width and the second width are selected to be less than a threshold width, and
wherein for widths above the threshold width, variations in index-to-width tolerance are anticorrelated with respective variations in index-to-thickness tolerance and index-to-temperature tolerance, and for respective widths below the threshold width the variations in the index-to-width tolerance are correlated with the respective variations in index-to-thickness tolerance and the index-to-temperature tolerance.
However, as mapped above, Hung discloses the use various lengths and widths. The specific lengths and widths selected are a result-effective variable. In that, if the lengths and widths are not properly sized, the MZI would fail to properly function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before Applicants filing date to include selecting specific lengths and widths, since determining the optimum lengths and widths is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)). This would be done to ensure the MZI would properly function, as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 16, Hung discloses Claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose:
… further comprising at least one input and at least two outputs having a third width that is greater than the second width.
However, as mapped above, Hung discloses the use various lengths and widths. The specific lengths and widths selected are a result-effective variable. In that, if the lengths and widths are not properly sized, the MZI would fail to properly function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before Applicants filing date to include selecting specific lengths and widths, since determining the optimum lengths and widths is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)). This would be done to ensure the MZI would properly function, as discussed above.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (US 20220269974 A1) in view of Bhaskar (US 20220269974 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hung discloses:
A Mach-Zender Interferometer (MZI) (Hung, Abstract, “A waveguide division multiplexer and demultiplexer includes a first-stage Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI) and two second-stage MZIs”) comprising:
a first arm comprising (Hung, FIG. 4A, [0046], waveguide arm 322A): one or more first delay sections (Hung, FIG. 4A, [0046], waveguide arm 322A); and … the one or more first delay sections having a total first length and a first width (Hung, FIGl 4A, [0046], “Each of the protruding portions 322A2 and 322A3 has a length L.sub.1/2 and a width W.sub.1, each of the protruding portions 322B2 and 322B3 has a length L.sub.2/2 and a width W.sub.2, and each of the curved sections 322A1 and 322B1 has a width W”);
a second arm comprising (Hung, FIG. 4A, [0046], waveguide arm 322B): one or more second delay sections (Hung, FIG. 4A, [0046], waveguide arm 322B); and … the one or more second delay sections having a total second length and a second width (Hung, FIGl 4A, [0046], “Each of the protruding portions 322A2 and 322A3 has a length L.sub.1/2 and a width W.sub.1, each of the protruding portions 322B2 and 322B3 has a length L.sub.2/2 and a width W.sub.2, and each of the curved sections 322A1 and 322B1 has a width W”),
wherein the total first length is longer than the total second length (Hung, FIG. 4B, showing L1 greater than L2), and the first width is less than the second width (Hung, FIG. 4B, showing W1 greater than W2), …
Hung discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the first width and the second width are selected to be less than a threshold width, and
wherein for widths above the threshold width, variations in index-to-width tolerance are anticorrelated with respective variations in index-to-thickness tolerance and index-to-temperature tolerance, and for respective widths below the threshold width the variations in the index-to-width tolerance are correlated with the respective variations in the index-to-thickness tolerance and the index-to-temperature tolerance.
However, as mapped above, Hung discloses the use various lengths and widths. The specific lengths and widths selected are a result-effective variable. In that, if the lengths and widths are not properly sized, the MZI would fail to properly function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before Applicants filing date to include selecting specific lengths and widths, since determining the optimum lengths and widths is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)). This would be done to ensure the MZI would properly function, as discussed above.
Hung discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… respective first undercuts under the one or more first delay sections, …
… respective second undercuts under the one or more second delay sections, …
However, Bhaskar, in a similar field of endeavor (NANOPHOTONIC QUANTUM MEMORY), discloses:
… respective first undercuts under the one or more first delay sections (Bhaskar, [0092], “Isotropic undercut etching could also lead to improved control over device cross sections and facilitate more sophisticated device geometries at the cost of reduced control over isotropically etched surface roughness”), …
… respective second undercuts under the one or more second delay sections (Bhaskar, [0092], “Isotropic undercut etching could also lead to improved control over device cross sections and facilitate more sophisticated device geometries at the cost of reduced control over isotropically etched surface roughness”), …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hung with the undercut of Bhaskar. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of undercuts as disclosed by Bhaskar and how to use them to modify Hung. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of undercutting for improved control over device cross sections and geometries.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Hung and Bhaskar discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… further comprising at least one input and at least two outputs having a third width that is greater than the second width.
However, as mapped above, Hung discloses the use various lengths and widths. The specific lengths and widths selected are a result-effective variable. In that, if the lengths and widths are not properly sized, the MZI would fail to properly function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before Applicants filing date to include selecting specific lengths and widths, since determining the optimum lengths and widths is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)). This would be done to ensure the MZI would properly function, as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Hung and Bhaskar discloses Claim 1, and Hung further discloses:
… wherein the first arm and the second arm comprise silicon (Hung, FIG. 1, [0038], “The first waveguide structure 110 and the second waveguide structures 121, 122 may be waveguide structures formed of silicon, silicon nitride or another material, and may be formed on the same substrate, e.g. a silicon-on-insulator (SOI) substrate or another suitable semiconductor substrate”).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Hung and Bhaskar discloses Claim 1, and Hung further discloses:
… wherein the first arm and the second arm comprise silicon nitride (Hung, FIG. 1, [0038], “The first waveguide structure 110 and the second waveguide structures 121, 122 may be waveguide structures formed of silicon, silicon nitride or another material, and may be formed on the same substrate, e.g. a silicon-on-insulator (SOI) substrate or another suitable semiconductor substrate”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Hung and Bhaskar discloses Claim 1, and Hung further discloses:
… wherein:
the one or more first delay sections comprises one or more first periodically segmented waveguides of a first periodicity (Hung, FIG. 1, [0041], In order to ensure that the wavelength division multiplexer and demultiplexer 100 achieve the goal, the phase delayed waveguides of the second-stage MZI structures S12A and S12B in the first waveguide structure 110 respectively have relative optical path phase shifts of 0 and π, i.e. the phase delayed waveguides respectively have relative waveguide length differences of 0 and λ/2n, where λ is the optical wavelength, and n is the effective refractive index of the waveguide; the phase delayed waveguides of the two first-stage MZI structures S21 in the second waveguide structures 121 and 122 respectively have relative waveguide length differences of 0 and π/2, i.e. the phase delayed waveguides respectively have relative waveguide length differences of 0 and λ/4n, and the phase delayed waveguides of the second-stage MZI structures S22A and S22B in the second waveguide structure 121 and the second-stage MZI structures S22A and S22B in the second waveguide structure 122 respectively have relative optical phase shifts of 0, π, 3π/2 and π/2, i.e. the phase delayed waveguides respectively have relative waveguide length differences of 0, λ/2n, 3λ/4n and λ/4n, such that the output spectra are respectively aligned with the center wavelengths λ.sub.1, λ.sub.2, λ.sub.3 and λ.sub.4); and
the one or more second delay sections comprises one or more second periodically segmented waveguides of a second periodicity, different from the first periodicity (Hung, FIG. 1, [0041], In order to ensure that the wavelength division multiplexer and demultiplexer 100 achieve the goal, the phase delayed waveguides of the second-stage MZI structures S12A and S12B in the first waveguide structure 110 respectively have relative optical path phase shifts of 0 and π, i.e. the phase delayed waveguides respectively have relative waveguide length differences of 0 and λ/2n, where λ is the optical wavelength, and n is the effective refractive index of the waveguide; the phase delayed waveguides of the two first-stage MZI structures S21 in the second waveguide structures 121 and 122 respectively have relative waveguide length differences of 0 and π/2, i.e. the phase delayed waveguides respectively have relative waveguide length differences of 0 and λ/4n, and the phase delayed waveguides of the second-stage MZI structures S22A and S22B in the second waveguide structure 121 and the second-stage MZI structures S22A and S22B in the second waveguide structure 122 respectively have relative optical phase shifts of 0, π, 3π/2 and π/2, i.e. the phase delayed waveguides respectively have relative waveguide length differences of 0, λ/2n, 3λ/4n and λ/4n, such that the output spectra are respectively aligned with the center wavelengths λ.sub.1, λ.sub.2, λ.sub.3 and λ.sub.4).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Hung and Bhaskar discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the respective first undercuts and the respective second undercuts are formed to have a depth greater than a wavelength of light that c are configured to guide.
However, the combination of Hung and Bhaskar discloses the use various undercuts. The specific undercuts selected are a result-effective variable. In that, if the undercuts are not properly sized, the MZI would fail to properly function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before Applicants filing date to include selecting specific undercuts, since determining the optimum undercuts is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)). This would be done to ensure the MZI would properly function, as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Hung and Bhaskar discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the respective first undercuts and the respective second undercuts are formed to be wider than a mode size of light that the one or more first delay sections and the one or more second delay sections are configured to guide.
However, the combination of Hung and Bhaskar discloses the use various undercuts. The specific undercuts selected are a result-effective variable. In that, if the undercuts are not properly sized, the MZI would fail to properly function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before Applicants filing date to include selecting specific undercuts, since determining the optimum undercuts is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)). This would be done to ensure the MZI would properly function, as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Hung and Bhaskar discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the first width and the second width are selected such that the respective variations in the index-to-width tolerance, the index-to-thickness tolerance and the index-to-temperature tolerance are all in a same direction.
However, as mapped above, Hung discloses the use various lengths and widths. The specific lengths and widths selected are a result-effective variable. In that, if the lengths and widths are not properly sized, the MZI would fail to properly function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before Applicants filing date to include selecting specific lengths and widths, since determining the optimum lengths and widths is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)). This would be done to ensure the MZI would properly function, as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Hung and Bhaskar discloses Claim 1, and Hung further discloses:
… wherein the first arm and the second arm comprise optically coupled power couplers arranged as 2x2 directional couplers (Hung, FIG. 2A, optical couplers 212A, 214A, 216A, 218A).
Regarding Claim 14, Hung discloses Claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein:
the first arm further comprises respective first undercuts under the one or more first delay sections; and
the second arm further comprises respective second undercuts under the one or more second delay sections.
However, Bhaskar, in a similar field of endeavor (NANOPHOTONIC QUANTUM MEMORY), discloses:
… the first arm further comprises respective first undercuts under the one or more first delay sections (Bhaskar, [0092], “Isotropic undercut etching could also lead to improved control over device cross sections and facilitate more sophisticated device geometries at the cost of reduced control over isotropically etched surface roughness”); and …
… the second arm further comprises respective second undercuts under the one or more second delay sections (Bhaskar, [0092], “Isotropic undercut etching could also lead to improved control over device cross sections and facilitate more sophisticated device geometries at the cost of reduced control over isotropically etched surface roughness”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hung with the undercut of Bhaskar. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of undercuts as disclosed by Bhaskar and how to use them to modify Hung. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of undercutting for improved control over device cross sections and geometries.
Claims 6-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (US 20220269974 A1), in view of Bhaskar (US 20220269974 A1), and in further view of Kato (US 20180167146 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Hung and Bhaskar discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… further comprising:
a cladding; and
However, Kato, in a similar field of endeavor (TEMPERATURE INSENSITIVE DELAY LINE INTERFEROMETER), discloses:
… further comprising:
a cladding (Kato, FIG. 6, [0038], cladding material 650); and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hung and Bhaskar with the cladding of Kato. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of cladding as disclosed by Kato and how to use them to modify the combination of Hung and Bhaskar. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of cladding as an insulator for improved control over devices.
The combination of Hung, Bhaskar, and Kato discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… a material in the respective first undercuts and the respective second undercuts, the material comprising one or more of: air; a negative thermo-optic material; and an index-matching material that is index matched to the cladding.
However, Kato discloses the use insulator cladding materials. The specific materials and their indexes are a result-effective variable. In that, if the specific materials and their indexes are improper, the MZI would fail to properly function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before Applicants filing date to include selecting specific materials and their indexes, since determining the optimum materials and indexes is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Hung and Bhaskar discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… further comprising:
a cladding; and
However, Kato, in a similar field of endeavor (TEMPERATURE INSENSITIVE DELAY LINE INTERFEROMETER), discloses:
… further comprising:
a cladding (Kato, FIG. 6, [0038], cladding material 650); and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hung and Bhaskar with the cladding of Kato. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of cladding as disclosed by Kato and how to use them to modify the combination of Hung and Bhaskar. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of cladding as an insulator for improved control over devices.
The combination of Hung, Bhaskar, and Kato discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… … a material in the respective first undercuts and the respective second undercuts, the material having an index of refraction that is less than or about equal to an index of refraction of the cladding.
However, Kato discloses the use insulator cladding materials. The specific materials and their indexes are a result-effective variable. In that, if the specific materials and their indexes are improper, the MZI would fail to properly function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before Applicants filing date to include selecting specific materials and their indexes, since determining the optimum materials and indexes is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Hung and Bhaskar discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… further comprising a cladding that comprises one or more of glass and SiO2.
However, Kato, in a similar field of endeavor (TEMPERATURE INSENSITIVE DELAY LINE INTERFEROMETER), discloses:
… further comprising a cladding that comprises one or more of glass and SiO2 (Kato, FIG. 6, [0038], “the insulator cladding material 650 utilizes directly the insulator material in a SOI substrate, typically silicon oxide, from which the waveguide section 512, typically a silicon waveguide, is formed and embedded therein”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hung and Bhaskar with the cladding of Kato. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of cladding as disclosed by Kato and how to use them to modify the combination of Hung and Bhaskar. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of cladding as an insulator for improved control over devices.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (US 20220269974 A1), in view of Kato (US 20180167146 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Hung discloses Claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose:
… further comprising a cladding that comprises one or more of glass and SiO2.
However, Kato, in a similar field of endeavor (TEMPERATURE INSENSITIVE DELAY LINE INTERFEROMETER), discloses:
… further comprising a cladding that comprises one or more of glass and SiO2 (Kato, FIG. 6, [0038], “the insulator cladding material 650 utilizes directly the insulator material in a SOI substrate, typically silicon oxide, from which the waveguide section 512, typically a silicon waveguide, is formed and embedded therein”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hung with the cladding of Kato. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of cladding as disclosed by Kato and how to use them to modify Hung. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of cladding as an insulator for improved control over devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights