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 .
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication to Mossberg 2012/0275746US in view of the US Patent Application Publication to Godet 2020/0194217US.
In terms of Claim 1, Mossberg teaches a waveguide (Figure 21), comprising: a substrate (Figure 21: 2100); an input grating coupling (Figure 33 teaches the grating can function as input coupler) disposed over the substrate (Figure 21: 2101/2102. 2103), the input grating having a plurality of device structures (Figure 21: 2101/2102. 2103 forms one grating branch wherein the device has multiple grating branches), adjacent device structures of the first plurality of device structures defining a gap therebetween (Figure 21: gap between 2101), the first plurality of device structures having: a device portion (Figure 21: 2101), the device portion including a device material having a refractive index of about 1.3 to about 3.8 ([0075]); and a metallized portion (Figure 21: 2103) disposed only on the device portion (Figure 21: 2101 and 2103), the metallized portion including an aluminum ([0075]), a sliver, a gold or a platinum material. Mossberg further teaches the grating can be used as input or output grating (Figure 33).
Mossberg does not teach a grating formed at a device angle defined by the substrate and a sidewall of each device structure of the plurality of device structures wherein the device angle is an acute angle; and at least one of an intermediate grating or an output coupling grating comprising a second plurality of device structures, the second plurality of device structures having a device portion including the device material having the refractive index of about 1.3 to about 3.8.
Godet teaches a grating (Figure 2: 212) formed at a device angle (Figure 2: θ) defined by the substrate (Figure 2: 210) and a sidewall of each device structure (each fin of 212) of the plurality of device structures wherein the device angle is an acute angle (See Figure 2: wherein the fins are angled on the line 218 the angle between the sidewall of fins and substrate is an acute angle [0034] and [0042]). Godet further teaches and at least one of an intermediate grating (Figure 1: 108) or an output coupling grating (Figure 1: 104) comprising a second plurality of device structures (See Figure 1: individual 108 or 104 which contains structures as shown in Figure 2; [0020-0029]), the second plurality of device structures having a device portion including the device material having the refractive index of about 1.3 to about 3.8 It would have been ([0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the angle of gratings fins of Mossberg to have an angle that is an acute angle in order to control the in-coupling and outcoupling of light that requires angle beam coupling. The slanted angles allow for better directional control of in-coupling of light [0031], having index refraction between 1.3-3.8 {0031]). Godet further organizes the gratings into input/output or intermediate gratings in order to incorporate it in a package (Figure 1: 100) wherein the signals are can be modulated, combine, or modified between it is outputted by the device ([0050-0061]). This allows the device to provided modulated or amplification functions to the optical signal at various point to strengthen the signal ([0025]).
As for Claim 2, Mossberg / Godet teaches the waveguide of claim 1, wherein Mossberg teaches the metallized portion (Figure 21: 2103) is disposed only on an upper surface of the device portion (Figure 21: 2103 is on top of 2101).
As for Claim 3, Mossberg / Godet teaches the waveguide of claim 1, wherein Mossberg teaches the metallized portion (Figure 21: 2103) extends from an upper surface of the device portion (Figure 21: 2101) to a first point on a second sidewall of the plurality of device structures (the interface sidewall between 2101 and 2103), the first point a first distance from a bottom surface of the substrate (first point is located at the top of 2101).
As for Claim 4, Mossberg / Godet teaches the waveguide of claim 1, wherein Mossberg teaches the metallized portion (Figure 21: 2103) extends from an upper surface of the device portion to a second point on the substrate (2nd point is top surface of 2103), the second point spaced a second distance from the first sidewall of an adjacent device structure of the plurality of device structures (See top surface of 2103 is spaced from corresponding position on the other branch of 2103).
Claims 8 and 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication to Mossberg 2012/0275746US in view of the WIPO Publication to Chen WO2012162880A1 and further in view of the US Patent to Greiner 8,593,732US.
In terms of Claim 8, Mossberg teaches A waveguide (Figure 21), comprising: a substrate (Figure 21: 2100); and at least one grating disposed over a bottom surface of the substrate (Figure 21: branches of 2101/2102/2103 is disposed over substrate 2100, the substrate 2100 is a 3-D structure will have a bottom surface, since the gratings of 2101/2102/2103 are located at the top substrate it will also be oriented over the bottom surface of 2100), the at least one grating having a plurality of device structures (Figure 21: multiple branches of 2101/2102/2103), adjacent device structures of the plurality of device structures defining a gap therebetween (Figure 21: gap between 2101 on left and right side), the plurality of device structures having: a device portion (Figure 21: 2101), the device portion including a device material having a refractive index of about 1.3 to about 3.8 ([0075]); a first side wall (Figure 21: left side wall of 2101/2102/2103);a second sidewall (Figure 21: right sidewall of 2101/2102/2103) and a point on the second sidewall, wherein the point is a distance from the bottom surface of the substrate (See Figure 21: Point location below) and a metallized portion (Figure 21: 2103) including a metallic material ([0075]) disposed on an upper surface of the device portion (Figure 21: 2103 is on top of 2101) and extending over the second sidewall (See Figure 21 below: wherein 2103 extend above the portion of the sidewall of in region of 2101) from the upper surface of the device portion to the point on the second sidewall (See Figure 21: 2103 extends to the point which from 2101), the metallized portion comprising:
a first edge that is coplanar with the first sidewall of the device portion (See Figure 21: first edge and 1st sidewall are coplanar to each other).
Mossberg does not teach a metallize portion including a metallic material disposed on an upper surface of the device portion and extending over and in contact with the second sidewall of the upper surface of the device portion.
Chen does teach a metallize portion (Figure 8: 330) including a metallic material (330 is made of metal, see below wherein the examiner have provided the translated portion in Chen)
“Referring to Figures 8, Figure 8 is a schematic view showing the structure of a reflective color filter according to a second embodiment of the present invention. As shown, in this embodiment, the reflective color filter 300 further includes a second dielectric layer 350 disposed on the dielectric grating layer 320 and the metal layer 330 and covered by the first dielectric layer 340. The refractive index of the second dielectric layer 350 is smaller than that of the first dielectric layer 340, and has a partial filtering effect, which is reflected in the sub-band of the two sides of the wavelength band where the maximum value of the reflectance is located, so that the reflected light has higher unity. Taking the green light band as an example, Table 2 shows the specific structure of the green light filter grating in the second embodiment:”
disposed on an upper surface of the device portion (Figure 3: 330 is on an upper surface of 320) and extending over and in contact with the second sidewall of the upper surface of the device portion (Figure 8: 330 folds over and covers the sidewall of 320 by contacting it). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to have a top layer that’s metallize wherein the top layer extends over the top surface of device portion and extends downward to the substrate in order to reduce resonance sensitivity of the device (Chen’s Abstract).
Mossberg / Chen do not teach “such that there is a gap between an endpoint of the metallized portion on the second sidewall and the bottom surface of the substrate”.
Greiner does a grating structure (Figure 14a: 42), having metallized portion (Figure 14a: 46), such that there is a gap between an endpoint of the metallized portion on the second sidewall and the bottom surface of the substrate (See Annotated picture below of Figure 14b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metalized portion to have an angle endpoint portion relative to the sidewall in order to maximize efficiency (Greiner’s Column 9, lines 15-35).
PNG
media_image1.png
210
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 10, Mossberg / Chen teaches the device of claim 8. Mossberg does not teach wherein the metallized portion includes a vertical wall that covers a portion of the sidewall of the device portion.
Chen does teach wherein the metallized portion (Figure 8: 330) includes a vertical wall that covers a portion of the sidewall of the device portion (330 covers up sidewall of 320 via its vertical orientation on the right side). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to have a top layer that’s metallize wherein the top layer extends over the top surface of device portion and extends downward to the substrate in order to reduce resonance sensitivity of the device (Chen’s Abstract).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mossberg 2012/0275746US / Chen WO2012162880A1 / Greiner 8,593,732US as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication to Godet 2020/0194217US.
As for Claim 9, Mossberg teaches the device of claims 8 and 11 above, Mossberg does not wherein the plurality device structures are disposed at a device angle define by the substrate and a sidewall of each device structure of the plurality of device structures wherein the device angle is an acute angle relative to a plane of the second side waveguide which contains a substrate.
Mossberg does not teach a grating formed at a device angle defined by the substrate and a sidewall of each device structure of the plurality of device structures wherein the device angle is an acute angle.
Godet teaches a grating (Figure 2: 212) formed at a device angle (Figure 2: θ) defined by the substrate of a waveguide (Figure 2: 210; [0031]) and a sidewall of each device structure (each fin of 212) of the plurality of device structures wherein the device angle is an acute angle (See Figure 2: wherein the fins are angled on the line 218 the angle between the sidewall of fins and substrate is an acute angle [0034] and [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the angle of gratings fins of Mossberg to have an angle that is an acute angle in order to control the in-coupling and outcoupling of light that requires angle beam coupling. The slanted angles allow for better directional control of in-coupling of light ([0031]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In this instant the applicant argued the prior art of Mossberg / Godet do not teach and at least one of an intermediate grating or an output coupling grating comprising a second plurality of device structures, the second plurality of device structures having a device portion including the device material having the refractive index of about 1.3 to about 3.8 (Remarks Page 6).
The examiner respectfully disagree, Mossberg teaches a grating coupler that is capable of function as both input and output coupler (Figure 33).
The newly amended limitation of “and at least one of an intermediate grating or an output coupling grating comprising a second plurality of device structures, the second plurality of device structures having a device portion including the device material having the refractive index of about 1.3 to about 3.8” is taught by the prior art of Godet as detailed above.
Godet f teaches and at least one of an intermediate grating (Figure 1: 108) or an output coupling grating (Figure 1: 104) comprising a second plurality of device structures (See Figure 1: individual 108 or 104 which contains structures as shown in Figure 2; [0020-0029]), the second plurality of device structures having a device portion including the device material having the refractive index of about 1.3 to about 3.8 It would have been ([0031]). Thus, the previously cited prior art Godet still reads onto the newly amended limitations of Claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8, 10, 11-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any of the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly amend limitations to claims 8, have been rejected in view of newly cited prior art to Greiner 8,593,732US as detail above.
This action is therefore made FINAL for the reason(s) detailed above.
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 HOANG Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5049. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 5:30pm 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 5712722397. 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.
/HOANG Q TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874