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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed June 24, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on April 13, 2026; June 24, 2026; and June 25, 2026, have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that a proposed amendment was discussed during an interview on June 24, 2026 in which a limitation requiring first and second electrodes to be both offset and aligned with an insulator between second portions of the first and second electrodes. The proposed amendment, which can be found in the interview agenda attached to the interview summary mailed June 26, 2026, introduced indefinite and unclear limitations which were also discussed in the interview. The electrode embodiment of Figure 16A was discussed. Examiner Connelly had indicated that an amendment reflective of the electrode structure of Figure 16A, correcting any indefinite language, and clearly defining a coordinate system and portions of the electrodes with respect to the coordinate system would distinguish over the applied art. The amendment filed on June 26, 2026 after the interview does define directions, but does not include the insulator limitation, and has broader limitations than anticipated. The filed amendment does not overcome the prior art rejections, which have been maintained below.
Applicant presents arguments that focus on the embodiment on Figure 16A.
The claims, as amended, however are broader and not limited to the embodiment of Figure 16A. The applied prior art discloses and/or suggests all of the claimed limitations as discussed below.
Applicant argues that Hu does not disclose modulators including waveguides and electrodes having a pitch of not more than 200 micrometers.
The examiner disagrees.
Paragraph 97 of Hu discloses that (emphasis added) “[o]ptical waveguides may be the most basic component of the TFLN circuit. When designing the waveguide arrays, a pitch for adjacent waveguides was specifically designed to have negligible crosstalk and a bending radius with low bending loss. In this work, a pitch of 20 um and a bending radius of 120 um was used.”
In Figure 11C, the waveguides of the TFLN circuit have a pitch of 20 micrometers. Please refer to annotated Figure 11C below. The modulators are formed by two waveguide arms extending from the waveguides of the array and include electrodes such that the modulators are spaced closer than the waveguide sections. The modulators certainly have a pitch (i.e. spacing) of not more than 200 micrometers, which is not more than 10 times the disclosed waveguide pitch of Hu.
PNG
media_image1.png
592
971
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that in Figure 12E of Hu, one electrode is not offset from another electrode along a direction perpendicular to the plane.
The claim does not define how the waveguides or offset or indicate that the offset is with respect to another electrode.
Additionally, a portion of one electrode is certainly offset from a portion of another electrode in any desired direction, since “a portion of an electrode” may be arbitrarily defined.
Inventorship
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (WO 2024/211410 A2), hereafter Hu.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19; Hu discloses an electro-optic device and a method of providing the elements thereof (see Figures 1, 3A, 11C, 13A), the device comprising:
a plurality of optical modulators (LN modulators; Weight modulators) corresponding to a plurality of channels (see paragraph 5),
each of the plurality of optical modulators (LN modulators; Weight modulators) including at least one thin film lithium-containing (TFLC) material (LN, TFLN; see Figures 1, 3A, 11C, 13A),
the plurality of optical modulators (LN modulators; Weight modulators) having a pitch of not more than two hundred micrometers (pitch of 20 micrometers; see paragraph 97);
wherein each of the plurality of optical modulators further includes:
a waveguide (waveguides; see annotated Figure 11C below; the waveguides are in a Mach-Zehnder configuration comprising an input, a y-branch section, two parallel modulation sections, and a y-couple section for each of the Weight modulators; see Figure 11C annotated below) including the at least one TFLC material (TFLN) and configured to carry an optical signal; and
a plurality of electrodes (electrodes), the plurality of electrodes configured to carry an electrode signal for modulating the optical signal,
a portion of the waveguide (parallel modulation sections between the y-branch portion and the y-couple portion; see Figure 11C; waveguides – see annotated figure 12E below) being between a first portion of a first electrode (first portion of first electrode) of the plurality of electrodes and a first portion of a second electrode (first portion of the second electrode) of the plurality of electrodes (see Figures 11C and 12E) in a modulation region (modulator; see Figure 11C);
the optical signal travelling along at least a first direction (the length direction of the optical waveguides, y-direction as indicated in the coordinate system added to annotated Figure 11C below) in the modulation region;
the waveguide having a width in a second direction (the width direction of the optical waveguides, x-direction as indicated in the coordinate system added to annotated Figure 11C below) in the modulation region;
the first direction (y-direction) and the second direction (x-direction) corresponding to a plane (xy-plane);
a second portion of the first electrode (second portion of the first electrode; see Figure 12E annotated below) and the second portion of the second electrode (second portion of the second electrode; see Figure 12E annotated below) being offset (vertically offset from the waveguides and the first and second portions of the first and second electrodes, respectively) in a third direction (z-direction) perpendicular to the plane (xy plane; see Figure 11C and 12E; the electrodes have portions laterally spaced from the waveguides);
wherein the second portion of the first electrode and the second portion of the second electrode are offset in another direction in the plane for the electro-optic device (the examiner notes that since the first and second portions and the “another direction” may be arbitrarily defined absent a well-defined claim of reference, a first the second portion of the first electrode may be near an input of the modulation region and the second portion of the second electrode may be near an output of the modulation region and the “another direction” may extend therebetween in an off-axis direction with respect to the x and y axis of the coordinate system provided with the annotated Figures below);
PNG
media_image1.png
592
971
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
400
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
515
834
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect]
wherein an optical modulator of the plurality of optical modulators includes lumped elements (see paragraph 79; separate drivers are inherently provided for driving the modulators separately);
wherein the pitch is not more than one hundred and thirty micrometers (see paragraph 97);
wherein the electro-optic device is a TFLC photonic integrated circuit (see Figure 11C);
wherein the waveguide (waveguides) includes a first portion (input portion), a second portion (y-branch portion), and a third portion (parallel modulation portions), the first portion being optically coupled with a first waveguide, the second portion being optically coupled with a second waveguide (see Figure 11C), the third portion (parallel modulation portions) being in the modulation region, an optical signal in the third portion being modulated by an electric field generated by the electrode signal (see Figure 11C);
wherein at least a part of at least one of the first portion and the second portion is aligned with the modulation region (see Figure 11C);
wherein the first waveguide and the second waveguide reside on a photonics device (see Figures 11C and 12E) coupled with the electro-optic device (see paragraph 79; separate drivers); and
wherein at least one of the electro-optic device and the photonics device includes an interface configured to be coupled with an additional IC (the interface is inherently required for coupling to drivers).
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.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (WO 2024/211410 A2), hereafter Hu, in view of Liang et al. (US 2022/0283453 A1), hereafter Liang.
Regarding claim 4; Hu discloses the electro-optic device of claim 2 as applied above, but does not specifically disclose shielding. Liang et al. teaches that modulators including two parallel waveguide portions with three waveguides may provide shielding for crosstalk by appropriately selecting driving and ground electrodes (see the abstract and paragraph 16; see Figure 1). Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide shielding between the plurality of optical modulators for the purpose of minimizing crosstalk.
Claims 5-7, 11, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (WO 2024/211410 A2), hereafter Hu, in view of Kharel et al. (US 2023/0251511 A1), hereafter Kharel.
Regarding claims 5-7 and 20-21; Hu discloses the electro-optic device of claim 2 as applied above, but fails to disclose the particular electrode structure. Kharel teaches that modulators may include a plurality of electrodes (see Figures 1B, 1C, 9-11, and 22), wherein the plurality of electrodes (120, 130) include a plurality of extensions (124, 134) and a channel region (122, 132), the extensions extending from the channel region, wherein a first portion of the plurality of extensions extends above the waveguide and a second portion of the plurality of extensions extends below the waveguide (see Figure 1B of Kharel), wherein the channel region includes at least one aperture therein (see Figure 1B, wherein apertures are formed between extensions 124, 134). Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the electrodes of Hu to include a plurality of extensions and a channel region, the extensions extending from the channel region, wherein a first portion of the plurality of extensions extends above the waveguide and a second portion of the plurality of extensions extends below the waveguide, wherein the channel region includes at least one aperture therein, for the purpose of providing electrodes having low signal loss, since this was a known alternative electrode structure in the prior art and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 11; Kharel et al. further teaches that the waveguide and electrode configuration provides for an optical loss of not more than 1 dB through a modulator (see paragraph 52).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (WO 2024/211410 A2), hereafter Hu, in view of Hara et al. (US 2022/0382118 A1), hereafter Hara.
Regarding claim 9; Hu discloses the electro-optic device of claim 1 as applied above, but fails to disclose that at least two adjacent channels of the plurality of channels are configured to carry counter-propagating signals. Hara discloses an alternative arrangement of modulators (see Figure 1; see paragraphs 5, 8-9, and 26-41) comprising channels configured to carry counter-propagating signals for the purpose of providing a modulator capable of preventing deterioration in the extinction ratio due to asymmetry between a pair of optical waveguides (see paragraph 18). Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the modulators of Hu with the at least two adjacent channels of the plurality of channels that are configured to carry counter-propagating signals for the purpose of providing a modulator capable of preventing deterioration in the extinction ratio due to asymmetry, since this was a known modulator structure in the prior art and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (WO 2024/211410 A2), hereafter Hu.
Regarding claim 14; the claim recites “wherein the electro-optic device is configured to be coupled to a plurality of optical fibers and to support optical signals corresponding to at least one of first transmission of at least 700 Gb/s per millimeter of width of the electro-optic device or second transmission of at least 800 Gb/s per optical fiber of the plurality of optical fibers” (the examiner notes that the device meets all of the claimed structural limitations and is therefore configured to perform the claimed functions; additionally, Hu teaches that the invention is relevant to systems using optical transmission media including fiber-optic cable and transmission fibers (see paragraphs 66 and 67). The optical fibers are optical signals are not part of the claimed “electro-optic device”. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the modulator array of Hu for use in an optical system including a plurality of optical fibers coupled thereto and transmitting desired optical signals, since this is an intended use that is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01 (I).
The examiner notes that "configured to be coupled to a plurality of optical fibers and to support optical signals corresponding to at least one of first transmission of at least 700 Gb/s per millimeter of width of the electro-optic device or second transmission of at least 800 Gb/s per optical fiber of the plurality of optical fibers” is an intended use of the optical fiber unit. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE R CONNELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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.
/MICHELLE R CONNELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights