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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 discloses a limitation “n-waveguide having a thickness that is more than five times a thickness of the p-waveguide”. There is no support for this limitation in the specification, the claim clearly discloses that “the n-waveguide layer is formed by an outer n-waveguide layer and an inner n-waveguide layer”. Table 3 discloses that the thickness of the inner n-waveguide layer is 0.6, the thickness of the outer n-waveguide layer is 1.0, making the total thickness of the n-waveguide layer 1.6. Table 3 also discloses the thickness of the p-waveguide layer is 0.2, so that the n-waveguide is 8 times thicker than the p-waveguide (1.6/0.2 = 8). There is no support in the specification for the n-waveguide to be more than 5 times thicker than the p-waveguide.
The remainder of the claims are rejected for their dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
1) Claim 1 discloses a limitation “n-waveguide having a thickness that is more than five times a thickness of the p-waveguide”. “More than five times” is an open-ended range, making the upper limit impossible to ascertain, making the claim indefinite. Furthermore, the claimed open-ended range in not supported by the specification.
2) Claim 1 discloses a limitation “in which optical gain applied to the first and higher order mode is reduced”. It is not clear to what element the limitation “in which” is referring, making the claim indefinite.
3) Claim 17 recites the limitation "the double waveguide". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since the limitation was removed from claim 1.
4) Claim 18 recites the limitation "an inner n-waveguide layer". However, the limitation is already recited in claim 1, making it unclear if it is the same element or a different one.
5) Claim 20 recites the limitation "noc". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since the limitation was removed from claim 1.
6) Claim 22 recites the limitation "nic". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since the limitation was removed from claim 1.
The remainder of the claims are rejected for their dependence on claim 1. For the purpose of examination, the limitations as presented have been searched and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/25 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
With respect applicant’s arguments regarding the 112(a) rejection, the examiner points out that the applicant has misinterpreted the disclosure of Table 3 as it relates to the claims.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s attention is drawn to the references cited on form PTO-892 in the previous office actions, which lists other references with similar features as the invention.
Contact Info
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. A. GOLUB-MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8602. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MinSun Harvey can be reached on (571) 272-1835. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/M. A. Golub-Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828