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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (i.e., claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 9/29/25 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bian (US 20230314730).
Regarding claim 1, Bian teaches an optical system, comprising: a substrate 14/16 (e.g., figs. 6, 6A); a waveguide 20 disposed on the substrate (e.g., figs. 6, 6A); an optical fiber 70 (e.g., ¶ 0038) optically coupled to the waveguide 20 (e.g., figs. 5-6A); and an optical coupling device 48/50/52/28/30/19/18 extending between the optical fiber 70 and the waveguide 20 (e.g., figs. 5-6A), wherein the optical coupling device comprises a dielectric layer 24/25/26/44/46/66 disposed on the substrate 14/16, a tapered structure 19/18 (e.g., fig. 1) disposed in the dielectric layer 24/25/26/44/46/66, and a multi-tip nitride structure 48/50/52/28/30 disposed above the tapered structure 19/18 in the dielectric layer 24/25/26/44/46/66 (e.g., figs.1, 3-6A; ¶s 0031, 0036).
Regarding claim 2, Bian teaches wherein the multi-tip nitride structure 48/50/52/28/30 comprises a two-dimensional array of nitride structures disposed in the dielectric layer 24/25/26/44/46/66.
Regarding claim 3, Bian teaches wherein the multi-tip nitride structure comprises a two-dimensional array of nitride structures, and wherein a number of the nitride structures in a first row of the two-dimensional array is less than a number of the nitride structures in a second row of the two-dimensional array (e.g., fig. 6; the 1st row comprises elements 28 30; the 2nd row comprises elements 48 50 52).
Regarding claim 4, Bian teaches wherein the multi-tip nitride structure comprises a two-dimensional array of nitride structures (e.g., fig. 6), and wherein dimensions of the nitride structures in a first column of the two-dimensional array are greater than dimensions of the nitride structures in a second column of the two-dimensional array (e.g., fig. 6; rotating fig. 6 90 degrees clockwise about a central axis going into the page, the far right/1st column will contain elements 48 50 52 which have larger dimensions than elements 28 30 contained in the 2nd column).
Regarding claim 5, Bian teaches wherein dimensions of adjacent tips in the multi- tip nitride structure are different from each other (e.g., at least as shown in fig. 5 the dimensions of tip 50 is shown as different than either tip 48 or tip 52).
Regarding claim 6, Bian teaches wherein a first tip of the multi-tip nitride structure overlapping the tapered structure is wider than a second tip of the multi-tip nitride structure that is non-overlapping with the tapered structure (e.g., as a non-limiting example, as shown in fig. 6, tip 50 overlaps a tapering portion of core 12; moreover, fig. 5 shows that element 50 has a wider portion than element 48 along a vertical line drawn through fig. 5 along the two facing arrows that point out a width of element 48).
Regarding claim 7, Bian teaches wherein the tapered structure 19/18 comprises a semiconductor material (e.g., ¶ 0025; Silicon Nitride is a semiconductor material).
Regarding claim 8, Bian teaches wherein the multi-tip nitride structure overlaps the tapered structure (e.g., figs. 6, 6A).
Regarding claim 10, Bian teaches wherein the multi-tip nitride structure comprises an array of nitride structures having silicon nitride material (e.g., figs.1, 3-6A; ¶s 0031, 0036).
Regarding claim 12, Bian teaches wherein a base of the tapered structure is substantially aligned with a base of the multi-tip nitride structure (e.g., fig. 6).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bian (US 20230314730).
Regarding claim 11, Bian teaches the system of claim 1 (see above 102 rejection). Furthermore, Bian teaches the waveguide core may be Si at ¶ 0025. Also, Bian ¶ 0031 teaches elements 28 30 may be Si nitride. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the index transitions as stated in claim 11 at least for the purpose of promoting efficient optical coupling (this takes into account that the typical OF core has a refractive index {RI} of about 1.45).
Thus claim 11 is rejected.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bian (US 20230314730) as applied to claim 1 above with obviousness evidenced by {OEB} Painchaud et al. (US 20190384003; “Painchaud”).
Regarding claim 9, Bian does not expressly teach the multi-tip nitride structure comprises an array of tips that are in contact with the optical fiber {OF}.
However, it was well-known for an optical fiber to contact an array of tips of an edge coupler at least as evidenced by Painchaud (e.g., Painchaud fig. 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the multi-tip nitride structure comprises an array of tips that are in contact with the OF at least for the purpose efficient optical coupling.
Thus claim 9 is rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Michael Mooney whose telephone number is 571-272-2422. The examiner can normally be reached during weekdays, M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For checking the filing status of an application, please refer to <https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application>.
/MICHAEL P MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874