CTFR 17/955,378 CTFR 78581 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Election/Restrictions 08-06 Claims 16-20 stand as withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07 January 2026 Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 12 May 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.§ 102 and/or 35 U.S.C.§ 103 in view of US Patent Application Publication US 2016/0109699 A1 to Balbas et al. (“US1”) have been fully considered and are persuasive (see Remarks at pages 6-7). Therefore, these rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of US1 and US Patent Application Publication US 2016/0018610 A1 to Kristnamurthi et al. (“US2”), see below. Applicant’s arguments regarding the with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C.§ 102 and/or 35 U.S.C.§ 103 in view of US2 have been fully considered (see Remarks at page 8), but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the mirror 250 at the second end of the waveguide 205 of US2 is formed as an angled edge and not a cavity and that the mirror of US2 is formed at an interface of the waveguide and another medium. However, Figures 3 and 4 of US2 clearly show a cavity formed by the angled edge of the waveguide (224/304) of US2. Further, the current claim language does not require that the cavity formed by the face of the SiN waveguide be empty of any other materials. Therefore, the current claim language is obvious and/or anticipated by US2, see full rejection below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by US2 . Regarding Claim 9, US2 describes an electronic device (see Figs 1-3) comprising: an optical source (104, 202, see [0023], [0025]) to generate an optical signal; an optical receiver (130, 134, 230, see [0024], [0026]) to receive the optical signal, wherein the optical receiver is not co-planar with the optical source (see Figs 2-3); and an optical coupler (126, 270, 300) to reflect the optical signal from the optical source to the optical receiver, wherein the optical coupler includes: a silicon layer (314, see [0034]) with a surface (top as shown in Fig 3); a silicon nitride (SiN) waveguide (304, see [0030]) on the surface of the silicon layer (see Fig 3); and a cavity (see Fig 3) at least partially formed by a face (205) of the SiN waveguide, wherein the cavity undercuts at least a part of the SiN waveguide (see Figs 3-4), wherein the face has a linear profile from a portion of the face adjacent to the surface of the silicon layer and a portion of the face that is furthest from the surface of the silicon layer (see Fig 3, [0025], [0028]). Regarding Claim 12, US2 describes an oxide (“oxide” layer shown in Fig 3) at a side of the cavity opposite the SiN waveguide. Regarding Claim 13, US2 describes the SiN waveguide and the cavity configured to reflect the optical signal based on a difference between a refractive index of the SiN waveguide and a refractive index of the cavity (see [0025]-[0026]). Regarding Claim 14, US2 describes a buried oxide layer (“oxide” layer shown in Fig 3) positioned between the face of the silicon layer and the cavity . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2 as applied to Claim 9 above . Regarding Claim 10, US2 is silent as to the dimensions of the SiN waveguide. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the SiN waveguide of US2 has a thickness of approximately 4 micrometers as measured perpendicularly to the surface of the silicon layer, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose , 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Regarding Claim 15, US2 is silent as to the smoothness of the face of the SiN waveguide. It is well-known in the art that forming a reflective surface with a low smoothness coefficient produces less scattering and/or back reflection than a reflective surface having a higher smoothness coefficient. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the face of the SiN waveguide of US2 with a smoothness coefficient of less than 10 nanometer (nm). The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce signal loss . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2 in view of US1 . Regarding Claim 1, US2 describes an optical coupler (126, 270, 300, see Figs 1-3) comprising: a silicon layer (314, see [0034]) with a surface (top as shown in Fig 3); a silicon nitride (SiN) waveguide (304, see [0030]) on the surface of the silicon layer (see Fig 3); and a cavity (see Fig 3) at least partially formed by a face (205) of the SiN waveguide, wherein the cavity undercuts at least a part of the SiN waveguide (see Figs 3-4), wherein the face wherein the face and the surface of the silicon layer form an angle at the cavity (see Fig 3, [0026], [0028]). US2 does not describe the face of the SiN waveguide and the surface of the silicon layer forming an angle of greater than 50 degrees at the cavity. US2 describes the formed angle as 45 degrees. US1 describes an optical coupler (see Figs 5-6, [0042], [0045]) comprising: a silicon layer (502, 602, see [0034]) with a surface (top surface shown in Figs 5-6); a silicon nitride (SiN) waveguide (504, 604 see [0034]) see on the surface of the silicon layer (see Figs 5-6); and a cavity at least partially formed by a face (510, 610) of the SiN waveguide (see Figs 5-6), wherein the face and the surface of the silicon layer form an angle of greater than 50 degrees at the cavity (see [0035], describing an angle of substantially 54.74 degrees as an alternative to 45 degrees). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the face of the SiN waveguide of US2 such that it and the surface of the silicon layer forming an angle of greater than 50 degrees at the cavity, as described by US1. The motivation for doing so would have been to make a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Regarding Claim 2, both US2 and US1 is silent as to the dimensions of the SiN waveguide. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the SiN waveguide in view of US2 and US1 having a thickness of approximately 4 micrometers as measured perpendicularly to the surface of the silicon layer, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose , 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Regarding Claim 3, both US2 and US1 are silent as to the smoothness of the face of the SiN waveguide. It is well-known in the art that forming a reflective surface with a low smoothness coefficient produces less scattering and/or back reflection than a reflective surface having a higher smoothness coefficient. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the face of the SiN waveguide in view of US2 and US1 with a smoothness coefficient of less than 1 nanometer (nm). The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce signal loss. Regarding Claim 4, US2 describes an oxide (“oxide” layer shown in Fig 3) at a side of the cavity opposite the SiN waveguide. Regarding Claim 5, US2 describes the SiN waveguide and the cavity configured to reflect the optical signal based on a difference between a refractive index of the SiN waveguide and a refractive index of the cavity (see [0025]-[0026]). Regarding Claim 6, US2 describes the face having a linear profile from a portion of the face adjacent to the surface of the silicon layer to a portion of the face that is furthest from the surface of the silicon layer (see Figs 3-4). Regarding Claim 7, US2 describes a buried oxide layer (“oxide” layer shown in Fig 3) positioned between the face of the silicon layer and the cavity. Regarding Claim 8, US2 describes the buried oxide layer further positioned between the face of the silicon layer and the SiN waveguide (see Fig 3). Regarding Claim 11, US2 describe an electronic device as set forth in Claim 9, see herein above. US2 does not describe the face of the SiN waveguide and the surface of the silicon layer forming an angle of greater than 50 degrees at the cavity. US2 describes the formed angle as 45 degrees. US1 describes an optical coupler (see Figs 5-6, [0042], [0045]) comprising: a silicon layer (502, 602, see [0034]) with a surface (top surface shown in Figs 5-6); a silicon nitride (SiN) waveguide (504, 604 see [0034]) see on the surface of the silicon layer (see Figs 5-6); and a cavity at least partially formed by a face (510, 610) of the SiN waveguide (see Figs 5-6), wherein the face and the surface of the silicon layer form an angle of greater than 50 degrees at the cavity (see [0035], describing an angle of substantially 54.74 degrees as an alternative to 45 degrees). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the face of the SiN waveguide of US2 such that the and the surface of the silicon layer forming an angle between 50 degrees and 54.7 degrees at the cavity, as described by US1 (54.7 degrees is “substantially 54.74 degrees” as described by US1). The motivation for doing so would have been to make a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm. 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. /JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 Application/Control Number: 17/955,378 Page 2 Art Unit: 2874
Prosecution Insights